Skip to content


Haidar Syed Bacha Sahib Vs. Karuppanna Pillai and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1911)21MLJ449
AppellantHaidar Syed Bacha Sahib
RespondentKaruppanna Pillai and ors.
Excerpt:
- - further in that case there were other circumstances set out in the judgment of lord herschell which clearly pointed to the parties having settled the dispute as to whether the agreement propounded was true. the respondents having failed on the question of res judicata, and the plaintiff being found to be entitled to 1/3rd of rs......by the plaintiff of the amount due to him for a particular period calculated on the basis of his share admitted by the 4th defendant, does not imply that the parties necessarily intended to settle what should be the shares of the plaintiff for future years - in re the south american and mexican co. (1895) 1 ch. p. 37 the decree for the exact amount claimed due for the 2nd instalment and the dismissal of the counterclaim with reference to the 1st instalment, necessarily involved a decision of the question as to the truth of the grant. further in that case there were other circumstances set out in the judgment of lord herschell which clearly pointed to the parties having settled the dispute as to whether the agreement propounded was true. in the present case all that is embodied in the.....
Judgment:

1. The only question raised by the present appeal relates to the construction of Exhibit XI (c) that is, a decree in pursuance of a compromise between the parties in a previous suit (O.S. No 256 of 1900) for recovery of the amount due to the present plaintiff, appellant, on account of his share. The question is, did the decree settle the dispute between the parties as to the share to which the plaintiff was entitled? The decree does not in so many words purport to decide what is the proper share of the plaintiff. Does what is decided thereby involve then a decision as to the share to which the plaintiff was entitled? Paragraph 1 recites that the 4th defendant in that suit, the 1st respondent, admitted that the plaintiff was entitled to a 7 3/8th share with his brother.

2. The parties consented to a decree in favour of the plaintiff for certain faslis on that basis. But the acceptance by the plaintiff of the amount due to him for a particular period calculated on the basis of his share admitted by the 4th defendant, does not imply that the parties necessarily intended to settle what should be the shares of the plaintiff for future years - In re the South American and Mexican Co. (1895) 1 Ch. P. 37 The decree for the exact amount claimed due for the 2nd instalment and the dismissal of the counterclaim with reference to the 1st instalment, necessarily involved a decision of the question as to the truth of the grant. Further in that case there were other circumstances set out in the judgment of Lord Herschell which clearly pointed to the parties having settled the dispute as to whether the agreement propounded was true. In the present case all that is embodied in the decree, Exhibit X(c), is consistent with the plaintiff having agreed to accept what was admitted to be due without the parties having decided the question as to future years. The respondents having failed on the question of res judicata, and the plaintiff being found to be entitled to 1/3rd of Rs. 111-3-0 of the third pangu, the decree of the Subordinate Judge will be varied by adding Rs. 68 to the amount awarded by him. Each party will bear his or their own costs.


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