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

2015 Supreme(Ker) 42

A.HARIPRASAD
Girija – Appellant
Versus
Rajan – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants:Rajit, Advocate.

Judgment

1. The substantial questions of law arising in this second appeal are thus:

Is a defendant, who raised a counter claim in the suit, bound to file two appeals if the suit was decreed after rejecting the counter claim? Will that part of the judgment, disallowing the counter claim, operate as res judicata insofar as the appeal filed against the decree in the suit is concerned?

2. Factual matrix, in the shortest form, is thus: Appellants were defendants in a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction filed by the respondents alleging that they were trying to trespass into the plaint schedule property over which the respondents have exclusive title and possession. In the suit, the appellants filed a written statement raising a counter claim under Order 8 Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, “CPC”). The appellants not only denied the allegations in the plaint that they attempted to trespass into the property, but also raised a contention that the respondents were trying to annihilate their right of way over the plaint schedule property. The trial court decreed the suit and dismissed the counter claim. The appellants took up the matter in first appeal to the lower appell



























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