Skip to content


Kundur Chirukandan Vs. Manunath Kandi Chathu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in5Ind.Cas.262
AppellantKundur Chirukandan
RespondentManunath Kandi Chathu and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 13 - res judicata suit for redemption bated on mortgage and alto on title--dismissal of suit on the ground that defendants held under a lease--subsequent suit on the said lease and also on title--maintainability. - .....has found that the lease of 1873 is not proved. assuming that the decision that the defendant held under the lease of 1873 is not res judicata, the decision in the suit of 1899 that the plaintiff, was not entitled to recover the land as that suit was one for redemption and the defendants were not holding under the mortgages, cannot obviously be a bar to this suit on title or on the lease. the fact that the plaintiff prayed for relief on title also makes no difference as the court excluded that question from consideration and treated the suit solely as one for redemption of a specific mortgage. we must, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, direct the judge to restore the appeal to his file and dispose of it according to law.2. costs will abide the result.
Judgment:

1. The Original Suit No. 199 of 1904 brought by the same plaintiff was dismissed on the ground that the defendants were nut holding under the mortgage then sought to be redeemed and that they were holding under the lease of 1873. The plaintiff now sues on the lease of 1873 and on title. The lower appellate Court has found that the lease of 1873 is not proved. Assuming that the decision that the defendant held under the lease of 1873 is not res judicata, the decision in the suit of 1899 that the plaintiff, was not entitled to recover the land as that suit was one for redemption and the defendants were not holding under the mortgages, cannot obviously be a bar to this suit on title or on the lease. The fact that the plaintiff prayed for relief on title also makes no difference as the Court excluded that question from consideration and treated the suit solely as one for redemption of a specific mortgage. We must, therefore, set aside the decree of the lower appellate Court, direct the Judge to restore the appeal to his file and dispose of it according to law.

2. Costs will abide the result.


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