Skip to content


R.M.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar and anr. Vs. Raja Visvanatha Vijaya Kumar Bangaru Tirumalai Savari Naidoo and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ548
AppellantR.M.P.L. Palaniappa Chettiar and anr.
RespondentRaja Visvanatha Vijaya Kumar Bangaru Tirumalai Savari Naidoo and anr.
Cases Referred and Aitamma v. Narayana Bhatta I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....under section 257-a can be said to be a new decree or an order subsequent to decree directing flie payment of money within the meaning of section 230 (b). in our opinion, the order sanctioning the compromise cannot be said, to be either anew decree or an order for the payment of money within this section - see venkatagiri iyer v. sadagopachariar (1900) m.l.j. 369 it is then contended that it is res judicata between these parties, that the order amounts to a decree, because, on an objection taken under section 311 to the confirmation of a sale in execution of the decree, it was held that the order operated as a decree and rendered notice under section 245 unnecessary. this ruling, in our opinion, proceeded on a mistake of law, and such a mistake cannot operate as res judicata in a.....
Judgment:

1. The application is barred under Section 230 unless the order sanctioning the agreement under Section 257-A can be said to be a new decree or an order subsequent to decree directing flie payment of money within the meaning of Section 230 (b). In our opinion, the order sanctioning the compromise cannot be said, to be either anew decree or an order for the payment of money within this section - see Venkatagiri Iyer v. Sadagopachariar (1900) M.L.J. 369 It is then contended that it is res judicata between these parties, that the order amounts to a decree, because, on an objection taken under Section 311 to the confirmation of a sale in execution of the decree, it was held that the order operated as a decree and rendered notice under Section 245 unnecessary. This ruling, in our opinion, proceeded on a mistake of law, and such a mistake cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent proceeding which in no way affects the operation of the previous order confirming the sale - Mangalathammal v. Narayanaswami Aiyar I.L.R. (1907) M. 461 and Aitamma v. Narayana Bhatta I.L.R. (1903) M. 504.

2. We agree with the lower Court and dismiss this appeal with costs.


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