Skip to content


Gangaraju and ors. Vs. Kondireddiswami and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1894)ILR17Mad106
AppellantGangaraju and ors.
RespondentKondireddiswami and ors.
Cases ReferredRama v. Tirtasami I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1883, section 13--res judicata--rent recovery act (madras)--act viii of 1886--decision of a revenue court--second suit in civil court--question of title. - .....application of his to have the ex parte decree set aside was dismissed. hence the present suit on title.4. as was held in rama v. tirtasami i.l.r. 7 mad. 61 the decision of a question of title by a revenue court is merely incidental, and no bar to a fresh suit on title in a civil court. our attention has been called to the decision in ragava v. rajaqopal i.l.r. 9 mad. 39 the learned judges who decided that case held that the decision and order of a revenue court under section 10 of act viii of 1865 would bar a subsequent suit on title in the civil courts. but it does not appear that the decision in rama v. tirtasami i.l.r. 7 mad. 61 was brought to their notice. we are of opinion that the principle laid down in rama v. tirtasami i.l.r. 7 mad. 61 is correct.5. we, therefore,.....
Judgment:

1. Assuming that the suit was maintainable, there can be no doubt that the decision is correct on the facts found.

2. It is contended, however, that the suit is not sustainable by reason of the decree in Summary Suit No. 72 of 1890 on the file of the Head Assistant Collector and of the order for ejectment under Section 10 of Act VIII of 1865 (Madras).

3. The first plaintiff did not appear to defend that suit and a subsequent application of his to have the ex parte decree set aside was dismissed. Hence the present suit on title.

4. As was held in Rama v. Tirtasami I.L.R. 7 Mad. 61 the decision of a question of title by a Revenue Court is merely incidental, and no bar to a fresh suit on title in a Civil Court. Our attention has been called to the decision in Ragava v. Rajaqopal I.L.R. 9 Mad. 39 The learned Judges who decided that case held that the decision and order of a Revenue Court under Section 10 of Act VIII of 1865 would bar a subsequent suit on title in the Civil Courts. But it does not appear that the decision in Rama v. Tirtasami I.L.R. 7 Mad. 61 was brought to their notice. We are of opinion that the principle laid down in Rama v. Tirtasami I.L.R. 7 Mad. 61 is correct.

5. We, therefore, dismiss this appeal with costs.


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