9911796707
TMI Blog1895 (12) TMI 1X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g brought the holdings to sale in execution of the decrees obtained by them and having themselves become the purchasers. 2. The defendants raised several objections in their defence, of which it is necessary for the purposes of this appeal to notice only one, namely, the plea of res judicata, as that is the only ground upon which the lower Court has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. 3. The plea is based upon a judgment passed in favour of the defendants Nos. 6 to 8 in a former suit for rent brought by them against the defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4, in which the present plaintiff intervened as a defendant. The question raised in that suit which was brought in the Munsif's Court (it being for an amount below ₹ 1,000) was to wh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... below has held that the decision of the District Judge in the former suit operated as res judicata upon the question of title raised in the present case. 7. In appeal it is contended by the learned Vakil for the appellant that this decision is wrong, firstly, because the former suit, in which a decision adverse to the plaintiff was passed, was brought in the Munsif's Court which was not a Court of jurisdiction competent to try the present suit which is valued at a sum exceeding ₹ 1,000, and to which value no exception is taken by the other side; and, secondly, because the question of title, which is a matter directly and substantially in issue in the present case, was not directly and substantially in issue in the former suit, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... h their Lordships held not to operate as res judicata was a decision, as the report shows, not only of the Munsif in the first instance, but also of the Subordinate Judge by whom the Munsif's decision was upheld, and it is hardly necessary to add that the case of Pathuma v. Salimamma I.L.R. Mad. 83 is also clear authority against the contention raised by the respondents. 11. That being so, it is unnecessary to consider the second contention of the appellant. 12. If it were necessary to arrive at a decision on the second contention on behalf of the appellant, we may add that, as at present advised, we should be inclined to decide it in favour of the appellant; but, as we have just remarked, it is not necessary to say more on the po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
