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

1960 Supreme(Pat) 94

H.MAHAPATRA
Ram Kishun – Appellant
Versus
Murlidhar Sharma – Respondent


Judgment

H.Mahapatra, J.

1. The appellants were the defendants in an action brought for declaration that the rent of the house in question is Rs. 23/- per month. In the original suit a claim for arrear of rent for one month at that rate was also included. But, that has been refused by both the courts below, and there is no appeal against that. The plaintiffs case is that the defendants took two rooms at a monthly rent of Rs. 13/- sometime in 1948, then, later on, took another room on an additional monthly rent of Rs. 10.00 in 1952. Thus, the three rooms in occupation of the defendants are for total monthly rent of Rs. 23/-. No specific period has been mentioned, in respect of which the present declaration has been sought. The defence was that in a previous small cause court suit, which was numbered as 120/42 of 1953, instituted by the present plaintiff against the present defendants for one months rent at the rate of Rs. 23/- was decreed only for Rs. 13/- on a finding that Rs. 13/- was the monthly rent due to the plaintiff. It was contended that that judgment will operate as res judicata and will bar the present suit seeking a declaration that the house rent is Rs. 23/-.

2. Both the




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