Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.17 seconds)The Census Act, 1948
Pitamber Chowdhry vs Sheikh Rahmat Ali And Mangli Khan on 16 December, 1921
12. Now it follows that in the case of lakheraj land each re-valuation involves a fresh liability; but that is not. the case in the case of rent-paying land where the liability arises from the general provisions of the Act itself. Therefore, in my opinion, the decision of Jwala Prasad, J , in the case that I have referred to has no bearing as applied to cases of cess payable in respect of rent-paying land as in the case before us, and it is clear that there is no general proposition laid down in that case that in any suit for cess in respect of a particular year the question of general liability is not barred as a matter of res judicata.
Hara Chandra Bairagi And Ors. vs Bepin Behary Das on 28 April, 1910
56 but this decision is substantially to the same effect as the decision in Hara Chandra Bairagi v. Bepin Behari Das 6 Ind. Cas. 860 : 13 C.I.J. 38.
T.B. Ramchandra Rao vs A.N.S. Ramchandra Rao on 31 January, 1922
15. Thus an erroneous decision on a point of law will constitute res judicata as much as a correct decision on a question, either of law or of fact. Reference may be made in this connection to the observation of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of T.B. Ramachandra Rao v. A.N. 8. Ramchandra Rao 67 Ind. Cas, 408 : 49 I.A. 129 at p. 137 : 30 M.L.T. 154 : 26 C.W.N. 713 : 45 M. 320 : 35 O.L.J. 545 : 16 L.W. 1 : (1922) M.W.N. 359 : 20 A.L.J. 684 : 43 M.L.J. 78 : 21 Bom. L.R. 963 : A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 80 (P.C.).
Gowri Koer vs Audh Koer And Ors. on 1 September, 1884
In this connection I would refer to the observations of Sir Richard Garth, C.J., in Gowri Koer v. Audh Koer 10 C. 1087. His Lordship in delivering the judgment of the Full Bench has observed: "But although those learned Judges may have made a mistake in point of law, in the decision at which they arrived in 1873, their decision upon the point at issue is nevertheless a res judicata as between the parties, and it is no less a res judicata, because it may have been founded on an erroneous view of the law, or a view of the law which this Court has subsequently disapproved."
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ayetonnessa Bibi vs Amjed Ali And Ors. on 1 March, 1928
Nevertheless in the second suit it was held that inasmuch as the issue of res judicata had been decided in the former suit, although wrongly decided, it could not be litigated anew by the parties and that it was itself barred as res judicata, That case was followed later by the decision in Ayetonnessa Bibi v. Amjad Ali 115 Ind. Cas. 588 : 32 C.W.N. 828: A.I.R. 1928 Cal 717 : 48 C.L.J. 184; Ind. Rul. (1929) Cal. 412 where it was held that a decision that an issue between the parties was barred as res judicata was final, and that the question whether or not it was barred by res judicata could not be re-agitated in a subsequent suit. For my own part I am unable for this purpose to distinguish the issue of res judicata as a mixed question of law and fact from any other issue that may be raised between the parties. It is misleading to say that the question whether or not an issue is barred as res judicata is a matter of jurisdiction. Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code states:
1