Bharma Shidappa Pujari Vs. Bhamagavda Shivagavda - Court Judgment
|Case Number||Second Appeal Nos. 48 and 110 of 1914|
|Judge||Basil Scott, Kt., C.J. and ;Beaman, J.|
|Reported in||AIR1915Bom21; (1915)17BOMLR271|
|Appellant||Bharma Shidappa Pujari|
.....a suit in not res judicata.;a decision that a matter is not res judicata and that, therefore, the trial can proceed, is not a preliminary decree, from which an appeal can lie.;chanmalswami v. gangadharappa (1914) 16 bom. l.r. 954 applied. - indian succession act (39 of 1925), section 63: [s.b. sinha & cyriac joseph, jj] will validity - deceased, was a very wealthy person - he floated several companies - he left behind his daughters, s and j - he was suffering from various diseases including some neurological ones - for his treatment, he used to frequently visit united states of america accompanied by his wife and daughter - by reason of a will, he is said to have bequeathed 50% of his property to s and 50% to j in a letter addressed to the 1st respondent, viz., s, he is purported to.....basil scott, kt., c.j.1. applying the full bench ruling in chanmalswami v. gangadharappa : air1914bom149 , we hold that a decision that a matter is not res judicata, and that, therefore, the trial can proceed is not a preliminary decree from which an appeal will lie at this stage. we dismiss both the appeals. costs costs in the cause.
Basil Scott, Kt., C.J.
1. Applying the Full Bench ruling in Chanmalswami v. Gangadharappa : AIR1914Bom149 , we hold that a decision that a matter is not res judicata, and that, therefore, the trial can proceed is not a preliminary decree from which an appeal will lie at this stage. We dismiss both the appeals. Costs costs in the cause.