SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 377

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
Mukhtiar Ahmed – Appellant
Versus
Husan Bang – Respondent


ORDER

The appellant had laid the suit for declaration of 2/3rd share of the house in his favour, on the premise that he was a co-onwer. It is not in dispute that on a previous occasion in a suit filed by the co-sharer, a finding was recorded that he was not entitled for 2/3rd share but to 1/5th share. The said decree became final. In view of the matter, it operates as res judicata as against the co-owners. He cannot claim any share in the suit for 2/3rd share. The High Court, therefore, was right in dismissing the suit. We do not think there is any legality in the finding recorded by the High Court.

2. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

Appeal dismissed.

*******

Parallel Citations of other Journals :

Mukhtiar Ahmad v. Smt. Husan Bano & Ors., 1996(2) Supreme 364 : JT 1996(2) SC 649

00018

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top