Vs
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second appeal regarding a property suit, the High Court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata due to an earlier judgment declaring the title documents invalid, setting aside lower court decrees and dismissing the suit.
What did the court decide?
Judgment and decree below set aside; suit dismissed with costs; second appeal allowed with costs.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 18.12.2017
PRONOUNCED ON : 19.01.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.1868 of 2001
1.S. Arumugham
2.Kumari Ammal
.. Appellants/Defendants
Vs.
V. Ramalingam .. Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of the Civil Procedure against the Judgment and decree dated 29.12.1999 passed in A.S.No.65 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Court, Cuddalore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.07.1997 passed in O.S.No.419/1994 on the file of the District Munsif of Cuddalore.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the decree in the previous suit (O.S.No.542 of 1990) is binding on the plaintiff and the suit is barred by res judicata?
Whether the present suit is maintainable without a prayer to set aside the previous decree?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
1. S. Arumugham
- appellant
2. Kumari Ammal
- respondent
V. Ramalingam
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court