Back
1924 Supreme(Mad) 793
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
In Re: Ayisha Bibi Ammal
Versus
Unknown
Decided On : 1 December, 1924
Important Points
Subject
Civil Law - Res Judicata
Headnote
Res Judicata - Competency in Section H, Civil P.C. - Value of Suit - Territorial Jurisdiction
Fact of the Case:
The court found that the judgment in a previous suit made the present suit res judicata. It held that the competency in Section H, Civil P.C. has reference to the value of the suit and not to the territorial jurisdiction. The property subject to the present suit was also the subject of the former suit. The plaintiff did not plead adverse possession despite a settlement and decree in a previous case.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the second appeal based on the above findings.
Issues: Res judicata, Competency in Section H, Civil P.C., Adverse Possession
Ratio Decidendi: The court interpreted the competency in Section H, Civil P.C. to have reference to the value of the suit and not to the territorial jurisdiction. It also emphasized the importance of pleading adverse possession in the present suit.
Final Decision: The second appeal was dismissed.
1. We think the judgment of Innes, J., in O.S. No. 5 of 1877 makes the present suit res judicata. The Original Side of the High Court was certainly competent to take cognizance of the present suit with reference to the value of the suit. We are of opinion that competency in Section H, Civil P.C., has reference to the value of suit and not to the territorial jurisdiction. No authority has been cited against this view by the learned vakil for the appellant. The property which is now the subject of this suit was also the subject of the former suit. The plaintiff has not pleaded that, in spite of the settlement of 1876 and the decree in O.S. No. 5 of 1877, she was in possession of the suit properties adversely to those who are entitled to them under the settlement and decree and acquired a title by adverse possession. Even if the allegation of possession in the plaint put was meant to raise this no issue was taken.
2. The second appeal is dismissed.
