Mari v. Mannangatti
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second appeal, the High Court held that title findings from a prior injunction suit operate as res judicata. The court set aside the appellate dismissal and restored the trial court decree declaring title to the appellant based on partition evidence.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was allowed, the lower appellate court judgment was set aside, and the trial court decree was restored.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 05.11.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.No.275 of 2014
Mari ..Appellant/ First Respondent/Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Mannangatti
2.Periyammal .. Respondents/Appellants/
Defendants 1 & 2
3.Munusamy
4.Seenu ..Respondents/Respondents 2 & 3/
Defendants 3 & 4
Prayer: Memorandum of Second Appeal filed under Section. 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 30.10.2013 made in A.S.No.80 of 2012 on the file of the Court of the Sub-Ordinate Judge, Kallakurichi, reversing the judgment and decree dated 03.03.2011 made in O.S.No. 605 of 2007 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif Court, Kallakurichi.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Murugesan For Respondents : Mr.N.Ramesh J U D G M E N T
The plaintiff in O.S.No.605 of 2007, whose suit for declaration and recovery of possession was decreed by the Trial Court upon its reversal by the lower Appellate Court has come up with this second appeal.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether findings on title in an earlier suit for injunction operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent suit for declaration and possession by the same parties?
Whether the Lower Appellate Court erred in dismissing the suit by ignoring the finding of title from the prior injunction suit?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Mari
- respondent
Mannangatti
- respondent
Periyammal
- respondent
Munusamy
- respondent
Seenu
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court