Skip to content


Arunachala Mudali Vs. Govindaraja Mudali and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in25Ind.Cas.434
AppellantArunachala Mudali
RespondentGovindaraja Mudali and ors.
Excerpt:
res judicata - former suit against taiuq president for cancellation of order--second suit against private parties for declaration of title--same land--second suit, whether barred. - t.n. district police act, 1859 [act no. 24/1859]. section 10 & tamil nadu special police subordinate service rules, rule 14(b), clause (iv) explanation (1); [a.p. shah,c.j., f.m. ibrajhim kalifulla & v. ramasubramanian, jj] rule 14(b),ci.(iv) explanation (1) providing that a person acquitted or discharged on benefit of doubt shall be treated as person involved in criminal case - validity being questioned - held, the impugned rule 14(b) ci.(iv) explanation (1) has been issued in exercise of the power conferred upon the government under the tamil nadu district police act, the criminal city police act and the..........of 1899 on the file of the court of the district munsif of chingleput are not the parties to the present suit, or parties under whom the latter claim. the plaintiff, no doubt, is the same in each; but in original suit no. 61 of 1899, the defendants were the union chairman and the taluq board president, contending that the disputed land was public street, while in the present suit the defendants are private persons, claiming the said land as their private property. it may be added that the latter suit was simply brought for the cancellation of the chairman's order forbidding the erection of the plaintiff's warp. it failed on the ground of limitation. this does not prevent the plaintiff from suing to establish his title to the land as against private parties and procuring the removal of.....
Judgment:

1. In our opinion the matter in dispute cannot be held to be res judicata for the simple reason that the parties to Original Suit No. 61 of 1899 on the file of the Court of the District Munsif of Chingleput are not the parties to the present suit, or parties under whom the latter claim. The plaintiff, no doubt, is the same in each; but in Original Suit No. 61 of 1899, the defendants were the Union Chairman and the Taluq Board President, contending that the disputed land was public street, while in the present suit the defendants are private persons, claiming the said land as their private property. It may be added that the latter suit was simply brought for the cancellation of the Chairman's order forbidding the erection of the plaintiff's warp. It failed on the ground of limitation. This does not prevent the plaintiff from suing to establish his title to the land as against private parties and procuring the removal of the koradus.

2. The second appeal must be allowed and the suit remanded to the original Court for disposal on its merits.

3. Costs throughout will abide the result.


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