Skip to content


Gadulula Venkatamma and ors. Vs. Yadiki Honkaram - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.97
AppellantGadulula Venkatamma and ors.
RespondentYadiki Honkaram
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), sections 13 and 43 - res judicata--court not competent to try the earlier suit--first plaint alleging interference with plaintiff's possession--second plaint alleging dispossession--cause of action. - - the present plaint alleges that the defendant occupied the well, and in effect the plaintiff had been dispossessed.1. the district judge was, we think, wrong in holding that the suit was barred under section 13 of the civil procedure coda (xiv of 1882), as the court in which the first suit was brought was not competent to try the present suit. we think he was also wrong in holding that it was barred by section 43. reading the plaint in this earlier suit it does not appear to us to allege dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant, but a certain degree of interference with the plaintiff's possession. the present plaint alleges that the defendant occupied the well, and in effect the plaintiff had been dispossessed. the two causes of action, therefore, were not the same and the bar under section 43 does not arise. we set aside the decree and remand the suit for disposal according to law.
Judgment:

1. The District Judge was, we think, wrong in holding that the suit was barred under Section 13 of the Civil Procedure Coda (XIV of 1882), as the Court in which the first suit was brought was not competent to try the present suit. We think he was also wrong in holding that it was barred by Section 43. Reading the plaint in this earlier suit it does not appear to us to allege dispossession of the plaintiff by the defendant, but a certain degree of interference with the plaintiff's possession. The present plaint alleges that the defendant occupied the well, and in effect the plaintiff had been dispossessed. The two causes of action, therefore, were not the same and the bar under Section 43 does not arise. We set aside the decree and remand the suit for disposal according to law.


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