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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 1164

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Nesammal and Another – Appellant
Versus
Edward and another – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.P.Mani, Advocate for Petitioners. Mr. K. Sreekumaran Nair, Advocate for 1st Respondent.

Judgment :

1. The Plaintiffs in Civil Filing No.8269 of 1997 on the file of principal District Munsif, Kuzhithurai are the Revision petitioners. This revision is filled under Article 227 of Constitution of India.

.2. The impugned order is rejecting the plaint on the ground that for the same issue, there was adjudication and therefore the suit is prima facie barred. The same is challenged under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

.3. It is not disputed by the plaintiff/petitioners that between them and the respondents herein there is an earlier suit in O.S.No.2 of 1983. The suit was decreed, taken appeal without success and confirmed by me in Second Appeal No.874 of 1994. The present plaintiffs were impleaded as legal heirs of the deceased appellant in that case. After a detailed discussion of the entire matter. I held that the revision petitioners are not entitled to any relief and the decree granted in the suit is not liable to be interfered with. An argument was also taken before me that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.2 of 1983 were given a decree to which they are not legally entitled to and the same will cause great injustice to them. The said contention was rejected by me i




















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