Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.82 seconds)V. Appannammanayuralu vs B. Sreeramulu on 7 September, 1977
20. The Supreme Court in Kiran Singh V. Chaman Paswan, AIR
1954 SC 340 had considered the principle behind this statutory
provision and the relevant extract as quoted in the judgment of V.
Appannammanayuralu Vs. B. Sreeamulu reads as follows:-
Section 21 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Smt. Isabella Johnson vs M.A. Susai on 9 October, 1990
14. The judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant reported in(1991) 1 Supreme Court Cases 494 Isabella
Johnson Vs. M.A. Susai by Lrs. is distinct on its fact in that case.
The apex court in that case had held that the question of
jurisdiction of a court is a pure question of law unrelated to the
rights of the parties and such a question cannot operate as res
RSA No. 116/2004 Page 8 of 13
judicata in a subsequent suit. There is no dispute to this
proposition. However, this ratio is inapplicable to the instant case.
That apart from the narration noted hereinabove, it is clear that
the courts below have not decided this issue (issue no 5 and 6) on
the point of res judicata, the defendant had made a factual
admission that he is a licencee; court had rightly returned a finding
that he is estopped from changing his stand. This answers the first
substantial question of law.