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

1923 Supreme(All) 599

GRIMWOOD MEARS, PIGGOTT, PRAMADA CHARAN BANERJI, RYVES, WALSH
Ghansham Singh – Appellant
Versus
Bhola Singh – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Grimwood Mears, C.J., Piggott, Walsh and Ryves, JJ. - This appeal was referred to a Bench of five Judges to decide whether the appellant's right of appeal was barred by what has been called ''the principle of res judicata," in accordance with a preliminary objection taken by the respondent, or, in other words, whether the ruling in Zaharia v. Debia ILR (1910) All. 51 applied to it, or whether, as the appellant contended, it was governed by the riding in Damodar Das v. Shea Ram Das ILR (1907) All. 730 and in effect, therefore, whether the latter decision was correctly reported as having been overruled by the former.

2. We are of opinion that there is no such bar and that the preliminary objection fails. The facts are simple. The plaintiff sues upon a mortgage executed by the defendant in his favour, on the 28th of May, 1914, and claims re-payment of the principal amount secured, with interest thereon at the contract rate, or, in the alternative, sale of the mortgaged property. The Munsif decreed the claim, but deprived the plaintiff of costs upon the ground that the rate of interest was excessive and that the sum had swelled to an inordinate amount. From this preliminary decr

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