Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.33 seconds)Section 92 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gorle Gouri Naidu (Minor) & Anr vs Thanarathu Bodemma And Ors on 9 January, 1997
In support of their contention reliance has been placed on the judgments of the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Hemant Kumar Bhattacharjee and Ors., (Para 18) ; Sobhag Singh and Ors. v. Jai Singh and Ors., ; Supreme Court Employees Welfare Association v. Union of India and Anr, and Gorie Gouri Naidu and Anr. v. Thandrothu Bodernma and Ors., .
Sajjadanashin Sayed Md.B.E.Edr.(D)By ... vs Musa Dadabhai Ummer & Others on 23 February, 2000
31. From the aforesaid finding of the second appellate court including the reliefs prayed for in the plaint read with Order XXXV, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure it cannot be disputed that the main issue for determination in the aforesaid suit proceedings was 'whether the petitioner (P. D. Tandon) or the respondent Union of India was entitled to the rent from the Allahabad Polytechnic'. The issue of title over the property was not the main issue for consideration in the said suit, nor it could have been so in view of Order XXXV, Rule 5, C.P.C. In the facts of the present case it has necessarily to be held that the matter directly and substantially in issue in the interpleader suit was confined to the right of the parties, i.e., between the parties interpleading only for collection of rent and any decision/ finding in such a suit proceeding with regard to the title over the property in question between the two parties interpleading would only be collaterally or incidentally an issue for the purposes of determination of the main issue of right to collect rent and as such cannot operate as res judicata. Legal position in that regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Sajjadanashin Syed MD. B.E. EDR. (D) v. Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors., , wherein it has been held as follows :
Syed Asrar Ahmed vs The Durgah Committee on 29 July, 1946
21. The next decision, again of the Privy Council is the one in Asrar Ahmed v. Durgah Committee, AIR 1947 PC 1, relating to the famous Dargah of Moinuddin Chishti, Ajmer. In a former suit of 1880 under Section 18 of the Religious Endowments Act, 1863 filed by the President and one member of the Durgah Committee for removal of one Ameer All, the mutawalli, on the ground of maladministration, the question as to the hereditary nature of the office was the subject matter of a specific issue and it was held that the office was hereditary, accepting the plea of the defendant, While decreeing the suit for removal of the mutawalli, the Court however held that if the mutawalli behaved properly, he could be reinstated as the office was hereditary. In 1918, the Durgah Committee filed a suit against Nisar Ahmad, brother of the deceased mutawalli, whom the Commissioner proposed to recognize as legal heir, and mutawalli, thus treating the office as hereditary. But in that case the Committee claimed that the office was not hereditary. Nisar Ahmed, the defendant claimed the office as hereditary and relied upon the earlier finding. This suit, 'however, abate. Nisar Ahmad died in 1940. Then Ameer Ali's son filed a suit claiming the office to be hereditary. The suit was decreed by the District Judge but dismissed on appeal. In the plaintiffs appeal to the Privy Council, their Lordships rejected the plea of res judicata and held that the issue as to the hereditary nature of the office was irrelevant in the earlier suit and the decision was incidental to and not the substance of the earlier suit.
Mahant Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji vs Patel Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai ... on 7 March, 1952
22. The Supreme Court decided a similar case in Pragdasji Guru Bhagwandasji v. Ishwarlalbhai Narsibhai, . There the question of res judicata arose at two stages of the same proceeding. The plaintiffs filed a suit under Section 92, C.P.C. in 1928 for :
Ashok Leland Ltd vs State Of Tamil Nadu And Anr on 7 January, 2004
32. It is to be remembered that no interpleader suit could have been legally entertained by the trial court for the purposes of determination of title of the parties in view of the provisions of Order XXXV, Rule 5, C.P.C. and in case the judgment and decree passed in the interpleader suit is held to be a decision with regard to the title claimed by the parties over the property in question, the suit itself would be without jurisdiction. Even if the trial court has held that it has jurisdiction to decide such an interpleader suit, the said finding would not be said to be res judicata inasmuch as wrong decision on the jurisdictional issue would not attract the principles of res judicata. The legal position in that regard has been settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ashok Leyland v. State of Tamil Nadu, , wherein the Apex Court has held as under:
Mangt.Of M/S Sonepat Coop.Sugar Mills ... vs Ajit Singh on 14 February, 2005
33. Reference may also be had to the case of Sonepat Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd, v. Ajit Singh, , wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows :
Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990
35. Thus, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner with reference to part of the finding of the second appellate court and affirmation of the judgment as a whole by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India referred to above cannot be pleaded to operate as res judicata so far as the title over the property between the petitioner and the respondent Cantonment Board is concerned.