Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (0.25 seconds)Section 11 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Mathura Prasad Bajoo Jaiswal & Ors vs Dossibai N. B. Jeejeebhoy on 26 February, 1970
48. The learned Appellate Court had also considered the arguments raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the SCC Suit was based on erroneous exercise of jurisdiction and rule of res judicata would not apply. The Court considered the judgment relied upon by the appellant in Mathura Prasad Baju Jaiswal (supra) and referred to the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph 10 that it is only a pure question of law which may not act as res judicata in a subsequent litigation between the same parties.
Section 30 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Provincial Small Causes Courts Act,1887
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
State Of Karnataka & Anr vs All India Manufacturers Organization & ... on 20 April, 2006
47. The learned District Judge has referred to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Karnataka vs. All India Manufacturers Organisation & Others reported in (2006) 4 SCC 683 where it has observed that "Res judicata is a doctrine based on the larger public interest and is founded on two grounds: one being the maxim nemo debet bis vesari pro una et eadem causa ('No one ought to be twice vexed for one and the same cause") and second, public policy that there ought to be an end to the same litigation. It is well settled that Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 is not the foundation of the principle of res judicata, but merely statutory recognition thereof and hence, the Section is not to be considered exhaustive of the general principle of law. The main purpose of the doctrine is that once a matter has been determined in a former proceeding, it should not be open to parties to re-agitate the matter again and again. Section 11 CPC recognises this principle and forbids a court from trying any suit or issue, which is res judicata, recognising both "cause of action estoppel" and "issue estoppel".
Shri Mundri Lal vs Smt. Sushila Rani & Anr on 18 September, 2007
However, a mixed question of law and fact like that which was raised and decided regarding whether the property in question belonged to a temple which was a private or public religious institution was rendered after appreciation of evidence and in Mundari Lal vs. Shushila Rani reported in 2007 (6) ALJ 357, the Hon'ble Supreme Court considered the position of mixed question of fact and law and in a similar situation had held that the question of applicability of Section 2(2) of the Act No. 13 of 1972 involves a mixed question of law and fact and refused to interfere in the finding recorded after appreciation of available evidence.