9911796707
TMI Blog1884 (12) TMI 3X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... judgment is a res judicata. 2. The plaintiffs sue for the rent of a tenure at the rate of ₹ 92 a year; and the answer of the defendants is, that many years ago, in the year 1867, a suit was brought by the plaintiffs for the rent of this same tenure at the rate which they now claim; and the answer which the defendants then made was, that the lease originally professed to grant more land than ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd suit is brought is a Court of different jurisdiction from that in which the first suit was brought, then Section 13 does not apply; and therefore as the Deputy Collector's Court in the year 1867 was a Court of different jurisdiction from that of the Munsif who tried this case, the decision in the first suit is no bar. 5. We think that this is not the true meaning of Section 13. The questio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 13 did not apply. But Mr. Justice MITTER in delivering the judgment of the Court said this: "We are of opinion, that this construction of Section 13 is not correct. It is well known that in this country the value of landed property is increasing every day. A suit regarding a particular property may be, so far as the pecuniary value of it is concerned, properly cognizable by a Munsif to-d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of such property, or from any other cause, the said Court ceased to be the proper Court, so far as pecuniary jurisdiction is concerned, to take cognizance of a suit relating to that property." 8. Accordingly the learned Judges in that case held, that the decision in the former suit was a res-judicata in the case then under discussion. 9. We entirely agree in the principle thus lai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
