Skip to content


Ahmed Vs. MoidIn and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil;Tenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1901)ILR24Mad444
AppellantAhmed
RespondentMoidIn and ors.
Cases ReferredKeshava v. Rudran I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, section 13--denial of plaintiff's title in a suit for rent--decree in favour of defendants--subsequent suit by same plaintiff against same defendants for possession-- res judicata--oaths act--act x of 1873--decree upheld in appeal on strength of oath--final adjudication. - .....first contended that the court which tried the original case was not a court competent to try the present suit within the meaning of section 13 of the code of civil procedure because the former suit was cognizable by a small cause court, whereas the present suit is a suit to recover land and therefore a second appeal is admissible. following the case of subhammal v. huddleston i.l.r. 17 mad. 273 which we find to be in accordance with the view accepted in calcutta bhugwanbutti chowdhrani v. forbes i.l.r. 28 calc. 78 we hold that the present suit was within the competency of the court which tried the other suit notwithstanding that in that other case there could have been no second appeal. we see that in srirangachariar v. ramasami ayyangar i.l.r. 18 mad. 189 the case of subbammal v......
Judgment:

1. Two questions are raised in this second appeal. It is first contended that the Court which tried the original case was not a Court competent to try the present suit within the meaning of Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure because the former suit was cognizable by a Small Cause Court, whereas the present suit is a suit to recover land and therefore a second appeal is admissible. Following the case of Subhammal v. Huddleston I.L.R. 17 Mad. 273 which we find to be in accordance with the view accepted in Calcutta Bhugwanbutti Chowdhrani v. Forbes I.L.R. 28 Calc. 78 we hold that the present suit was within the competency of the Court which tried the other suit notwithstanding that in that other case there could have been no second appeal. We see that in Srirangachariar v. Ramasami Ayyangar I.L.R. 18 Mad. 189 the case of Subbammal v. Huddleston I.L.R. 17 Mad. 273 was not cited. It was apparently overlooked.

2. The other question relates to the fact that the first decree was affirmed on the strength of an oath taken under the Oaths Act. We do not think that that makes any difference. There was a confirmation of the original decree. Moreover as, between the parties, we are of opinion that a decree arrived at after the taking of an oath on a question of fact involved in the case is none the less a final adjudication. The case of Jenkins v. Robertson L.R. 1 H.L. 117 which appears to have been misunderstood, has been explained in In re. South American and Mexican Company [1895] 1 Ch. 37. In the circumstances of the present case however the case of Keshava v. Rudran I.L.R. 5 Mad. 259 does not in strictness apply, for now the precise question decided in the former case is the question which arises in the present suit.

3. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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