Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.08 seconds)
Bohar Singh And Anr. vs Dalip Kaur And Ors. on 15 July, 2003 cites

Sulochana Amma vs Narayanan Nair on 24 September, 1993

4. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that finding of the courts below on the issue of resjudicata was erroneous and substantial question of law whether judgment in the former suit for injunction will operate as res judicata on the question of title was involved. He submitted that in a previous suit for injunction, one of the issues was whether plaintiffs were owners in possession, while finding was only that they were in possession, there was no finding of their title. Reliance is placed on judgment of the Supreme Court in Sulochana Amma v. Narayana Nair, A.I.R. 1994 S.C. 152, Para 8. In the said judgment, following observations were made which have been relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 183 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Sajjadanashin Sayed Md.B.E.Edr.(D)By ... vs Musa Dadabhai Ummer & Others on 23 February, 2000

6. Applying the test approved by the court in Sajjadanashin Sayed (supra), it is seen that in the previous judgment, though technically, an issue existed whether plaintiff was owner in possession, the judgment was based on the examination of question of possession and finding that plaintiff, being in possession, was entitled to injunction was recorded. Question of title was not directly or substantially in issue as rightly held by both the courts below.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 126 - M J Rao - Full Document

Vanagiri Sri Selliamman Ayyanar ... vs Rajanga Asari And Ors. on 25 March, 1964

Referring to an apparently contrary decision of Madras High Court in Seliamman Ayyanar Uthiva Samasundareswarar Temple v. Rajanga, A.I.R. 1965 Madras 355, it was held that both the decision should be understood in the context of tests to be applied for holding whether a question was directly or substantially in issue or incidentally in issue and it depends on facts of an individual case whether finding on the question of title is considered necessary for grant of injunction and was directly and substantially in issue or otherwise. Thus, it cannot be held that the decision relied on by the learned counsel for the appellants is to be read as holding that finding on a question of title in every injunction suit is to be treated as res judicata, whether or not the question of title is directly and substantially in issue in an injunction suit, as it sought to be contended by learned counsel for the appellants.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 29 - Full Document
1