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

1928 Supreme(Mad) 210

PHILLIPS
B. Raja Rajeswara Sethupathi – Appellant
Versus
Muthudayana Pillai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Phillips, J.

1. In this case the plaintiff (respondent) instituted a suit in a Revenue Court under Section 55 of the Estates Land Act. His suit in respect of the plaint land was dismissed on the ground that he was not entitled to demand a patta. He has brought the present suit to obtain possession of the suit land, and the question that now arises for decision is whether the decision in the prior suit in the Revenue Court is res judicata or not. The Section applicable is Section 189 (3) of the Estates Land Act. It says:

The decision of a Revenue Court or of an appellate or revisional authority in any suit or proceeding under this Act on a matter falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Revenue Court shall be binding on the parties thereto and persons claiming under them in any suit or proceeding in a Civil Court in which such matter may be in issue between them.

2. This question has been considered in several cases, but in most of these cases the circumstances were not the same as here. In Ramadina Das Gosayiji Garu v. Boishamo Mundalo (1921) 14 L.W. 251 and Second Appeals Nos. 1002 and 1213 of 1916 on the file of the High Court the prior litigation in the Revenue Cour






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