Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.31 seconds)
A.Ponnusamy vs / cites

Shri Pathikali Amman Kovil vs The Revenue Divisional Officer on 9 January, 2023

22. The Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in W.P.(MD)No.1269 of 2023 (Shri Pathikali Amman Kovil V. The Revenue Divisional 23/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 Officer and others), held that the principles of estoppel, res judicata and finality of judgment are matters of public policy and they contribute to the efficient administration of justice by preventing the wastage of judicial resources on repetitive litigation, besides parallel litigation and integrity of the judicial system. Applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench to the facts of the case, it is seen that lis in respect of the very same 7.65 Acres has been subject matter of several proceedings before competent Courts and matter has attained finality. Even though it is contended by the learned Senior Counsel, Mr.T.Mohan, appearing for the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner was not a party to the land acquisition proceedings, it is seen that in two other civil suits, the petitioner was very much a party defendant and he has not chosen to challenge the decrees passed in favour of the third respondent and allowed and the same to become final. Even otherwise, the petitioner was provided ample opportunity and therefore cannot now be heard to complain of any alleged lack of opportunity. As can be seen from the records, the petitioner has been given a full opportunity to put forth all his contention and therefore, the petitioner complain of being deprived of an opportunity to put forth his claims / objections. Though several other 24/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 judgments have been relied on by the learned Senior Counsel for the third respondent with regard to the effect of the proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act and binding nature of judgments passed in such proceedings, in view of the above discussions, I do not deem it necessary to go into any greater details to discuss the various judgments that had been relied on by the learned Senior Counsel.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - D B Chakravarthy - Full Document

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By Lrs & Ors on 25 March, 2008

Unfortunately, I see no merit in the arguments of the learned Senior Counsel. If at all there had been no other proceedings between the parties, then probably some good weightage may be attached to such contentions advanced by the learned Senior Counsel. However, as can be seen from the various proceedings before the competent civil Court and also writ petitions, the 21/27 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 09/05/2025 02:51:49 pm ) W.P.(MD)No.15970 of 2020 issue regarding title of 7.65 Acres has already been decided by the competent civil Court and the findings of the Civil Courts that suits for bare injunction were maintainable and no relief for declaration was even required, in view of the earlier findings of the Courts, has also become final. Therefore, I see no necessity for me fall back on the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Anathula Sudhakar's case requiring the relief for declaration to be filed for certain circumstances.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 2311 - R V Raveendran - Full Document
1   2 Next