Must Read

M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, 1964

Image
M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb, (1964) 6 SCR 642, 651 This case interpretation/case summary is written by Ms. Swati Sharma a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to  niyamskanoon09@gmail.com . Case Details PETITIONER:  MRS. M. N. CLUBWALA AND ANR. Vs. RESPONDENT: FIDA HUSSAIN SAHEB AND ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 03/02/1964 BENCH: MUDHOLKAR, J.R. SUBBARAO, K. CITATION: 1965 AIR 610 1964 SCR (6) 642 Introduction   The case of M.N. Clubwala v. Fida Hussain Saheb (1964) under the Delhi Rent Control Act is a landmark judgment that clarifies the distinction between a lease and a license and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The primary issue in this case was whether the agreements between the landlord (M.N. Clubwala) and the shopkeepers (Fida Hussain Saheb) created a lease or a license.  Facts of the Case M.N. Clubwala (Landlord) used his building as market by
Post a Comment

IFTIKHAR AHMED v. SYED MEHARBAN ALI, 1974

Iftikhar Ahmed v. Syed Meharban Ali

[AIR 1974]

This case interpretation/case summary is written by Mr. Sonu Choudhary, a student at the Faculty of Law (Delhi University). If you also want to publish your articles or case interpretations/summaries, send your work to niyamskanoon09@gmail.com .

 

INTRODUCTION

This case talks about the doctrine of Res Judicata that is mentioned in Section 11 of CPC, 1908. This doctrine of Res Judicata means the matter which has been previously adjudicated should not be tried before the Court.



SECTION 11- RES JUDICATA

  1. NO COURT SHALL TRY 
    • ANY SUIT OR ISSUE
      1. IN WHICH MATTER IN ISSUE  DIRECTLY OR SUBSTANTIALLY A MATTER IN ISSUE IN A PRVIOUS SUIT
      2. BETWEEN SAME PARTIES OR,
      3. BETWEEN PARTIES UNDER WHOM THEY OR ANY OF THEM CLAIM,
      4. LITIGATING UNDER THE SAME TITLE
    • IN A COURT COMPETENT TO TRY SUCH SUBSEQUENT SUIT OR THE SUIT IN WHICH THE ISSUE RAISED SUBSEQUENTLY
    • AND HAS BEEN HEARD
    • AND FINALLY DECIDED BY THE COURT.
FACTS
  • The appellants are legal representatives of Ishtiaq Ahmed. The dispute between the parties was for the title over the disputed property.
  • In the consolidation proceedings under "UP Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953", the respondents, Meharban Ali and K. Fatima, claimed that they were co- bhumidars of the properties along with Ishtiaq Ahmed.
  • To decide the dispute, the matter referred to Civil Judge who referred to an Arbitrator appointed under the Act.
Case History

  • The arbitrator held that Meharban Ali and K. Fatima had no title and so were not co-bhumidars. The arbitrator relied on the earlier judgement of the HC in a previous suit and held that the HC judgement operated as Res Judicata.
  • Objection filed before the Civil Judge who held that the HC judgement  did not operate as Res Judicata between the parties. He remitted the case to arbitrator for fresh rewards.
  • Now the arbitrator concluded that parties were co-bhumidars and the earlier judgement of Hc did not act as Res Judicata.
  • Civil Judge confirmed the award of 2nd arbitrator.
  • Ishtiaq Ahmed appealed before District Judge. He held that the arbitrator ignored the judgement of HC which operated as Res Judicata as regards to the title of the properties.
  • Respondents filed revision before the HC who reversed the decision and restored the decree passed by Civil Judge.
  • Therefore the appellant appealed before SC.

PREVIOUS SUIT

  • Earlier a judgement passed by HC in an appeal for which the suit was filed by Syed Meharban Ali, K. Fatima, and Ishtiaq Ahmed for a declaration that the decree obtained in a mortgaged deed by the defendant, Ishari Prasad, was invalid to the extent of the shares of Meharban Ali and K. Fatima.
  • Ishari Prasad contended that Meharban Ali and K. Fatima was not entitled to the property as their mothers had relinquished their share and the title to the properties exclusively vested in the mother of Ishtiaq Ahmed.
  • The Court decided that the properties exclusively belonged to the mother of Ishtiaq Ahmed and not to Meharban Ali or K. Fatima.


ISSUES
  1. Whether HC was right in setting aside the decree passed by the District Judge.
  2. Whether the earlier judgement of the HC operated as Res Judicata as the parties herein were co-plaintiffs in earlier suit.

RATIO DECIDENDI
  • Essentials for a judgement to operate as Res Judicata between or among co-defendants
    1. Conflict of interest should be in between co-defendants
    2. Decided the conflict in order to give relief to the plaintiff
    3. The Court decided the issue.
  • Lord Simonds in Chandu Lal v. Khalilur Rahman (1950) said, whether the party contested the question in a previous suit or not, the doctrine will apply to them also if he had the notice that the relevant question was in issue and would have to be decided.
  • The main reason behind the rule is to confer finality on decisions arrived at by competent Courts between interested parties after genuine contest.

DECISION

  • Allowed the appeal.
  • Set aide the judgement of HC, restored the decree passed by 1st arbitrator
  • The previous judgement of HC operates as Res Judicata.

Also Read :- 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular Post

Ashbury Railway Carriage and Iron Co. Ltd. v. Riche (1875)

Image
Ashbury railway carriage v riche|| Case Summary  Introduction   This case is related to the " Doctrine of Ultra Vires". In this case, the directors of the appellant company made an agreement with the plaintiff which was beyond the objectives, as mentioned in its MoA, of the appellant Company. Since the agreement was beyond its objectives, the appellant company repudiated the agreement later. Therefore the suit was brought by the plaintiff to recover the damages. Facts   The directors of the appellant company (Ashbury Railway Carriage) had contracted to obtain a concession from Gillon and Poeters Baerston, who obtained this right from the Belgian Government, to make a railway.  For this purpose, the directors of the appellant company again entered into a contract with Riche, a contractor, the purpose of which was to establish a société anonyme,  and as the plaintiff went on with the work, the appellant company had to pay into the hands of société anonyme,  Earlier the sharehol
Read more

Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353

Image
Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate, AIR 1958 SC 353 Case Summary Introduction The case of Workmen of Dimakuchi Tea Estate v. Dimakuchi Tea Estate involved a dispute between the management of the Dimakuchi Tea Estate and its workers. This case has discussed and cleared the meaning of the expression "any person" used in S.2(K) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a limited interpretation of the term "any person" thereby excluding the present appellant from the ambit of the Industrial Disputes Act of 1947. This decision denied the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal to adjudicate the dispute and extended the benefits and protections of the Act to the employers. Facts of the Case The dispute was raised over the termination of the service of Dr K.P. Banerjee, who was appointed as an Assistant Medical Officer in the Respondent's estate (Dimakuchi Tea Estate), on the grounds of being incompetent. Although th
Read more