Skip to content


Bharma Shidappa Pujari Vs. Bhamagavda Shivagavda - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal Nos. 48 and 110 of 1914
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Bom21; (1915)17BOMLR271
AppellantBharma Shidappa Pujari
RespondentBhamagavda Shivagavda
Excerpt:
.....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.
Judgment:

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.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //