//
archives

Sulakshana

This tag is associated with 2 posts

Suit – Eviction suit – Issue regarding title between parties – Recording of finding in favour of plaintiff – Subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the same parties – Effect of earlier suit on the subsequent suit – Held: Finding recorded in favour of the plaintiff in the earlier suit for eviction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the parties – Question of title was directly and substantially in issue between the parties in the earlier suit – Res judicata. The plaintiff, mother of the respondents, filed a suit for eviction against the defendant, father of the appellants. The issues were framed regarding the plaintiff’s claim to the title over the suit property and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The trial court upheld the plaintiff’s claim to the title but did not grant decree of eviction since the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established between the parties. The appellate court affirmed the order of the trial court. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed another suit against the defendant seeking declaration of title over the property and recovery of its possession from the defendant. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant filed an appeal and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the plaintiff died and her legal representatives-respondent filed the second appeal. The High Court set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the first appellate court and restored the judgment and the decree of the trial court. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal.= Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: The issue of title was expressly raised by the parties in the earlier eviction suit and it was expressly decided by the eviction court. The question of title was directly and substantially in issue between the parties in the earlier suit for eviction. Hence, the High Court was right in holding that the finding recorded in favour of the plaintiff in the earlier suit for eviction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the parties. [Para 17] [740-D-F] Pardip Singh vs. Ram Sundar Singh AIR (36) 1949 Patna 510 – approved. Shamim Akhtar v. Iqbal Ahmad and ANOTHER (2000) 8 SCC 123; Sajjadanashin Sayed Md.B.E.Edr.by L.Rs.(D) vs, Musa Dadabhai Ummer and Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 350 – referred to. Case Law Reference: (2000) 8 SCC 123 Referred to. Para 14 (2000)3 SCC 350 Referred to. Para 15 AIR (36) 1949 Patna 510 approved. Para 15 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2579 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 24.05.2002 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in Appeal from appellate decree No. 236 of 1987. H.L. Agarwal, Gaurav Agrawal, Dr. Kailash Chand for the Appellates. Seema Kashyap, S.K. Sinha for the Respondents.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2579 OF 2004 Md. Nooman & Ors. ….Appellants Versus Md. Jabed Alam & Ors. ….Respondents JUDGMENT AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. A finding on the question of title recorded in a suit for eviction would how far be binding in a subsequent suit for … Continue reading

Suit – Eviction suit – Issue regarding title between parties – Recording of finding in favour of plaintiff – Subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the same parties – Effect of earlier suit on the subsequent suit – Held: Finding recorded in favour of the plaintiff in the earlier suit for eviction would operate as res judicata in the subsequent suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession between the parties – Question of title was directly and substantially in issue between the parties in the earlier suit – Res judicata. The plaintiff, mother of the respondents, filed a suit for eviction against the defendant, father of the appellants. The issues were framed regarding the plaintiff’s claim to the title over the suit property and the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties. The trial court upheld the plaintiff’s claim to the title but did not grant decree of eviction since the relationship of landlord and tenant was not established between the parties. The appellate court affirmed the order of the trial court. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed another suit against the defendant seeking declaration of title over the property and recovery of its possession from the defendant. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendant filed an appeal and the same was allowed. Thereafter, the plaintiff died and her legal representatives-respondent filed the second appeal. The High Court set aside the judgment and the decree passed by the first appellate court and restored the judgment and the decree of the trial court. Therefore, the appellants filed the instant appeal.

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.2579 OF 2004 Md. Nooman & Ors. ….Appellants Versus Md. Jabed Alam & Ors. ….Respondents JUDGMENT AFTAB ALAM, J. 1. A finding on the question of title recorded in a suit for eviction would how far be binding in a subsequent suit for … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,101 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com