Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Kamath Chathappan Nair vs Edavalath Vammeri Pydel Nambiar on 6 April, 1891
Equivalent citations: (1896) 6 MLJ 555


JUDGMENT

1. The question whether the decree as amended is binding on the appellant was decided in the affirmative as between him and the decree-holder in. C.M.P. No 319 of 1888. The matter is therefore res judicata, as it is the same decree which is now under execution though the property attached is different. The decision in “Parthasaradi v. Chinnakrishna (1882) I.L.R. 5 M. 304 does not apply.

2. It has been further argued that the decree amended was not the final decrea passed in O.S. No. 162 of 1878, and the decree of the Appellate Court was the one which should have been amended. We are referred to several decided cases in support of this contention, and especially to the decision in Muhammad Sulaiman Khan v. Muhammad Yar Khan (1888) I.L.R. 11 A. 267 in which the decision in Sundara v. Subbanna (1886) I.L.R. 9 M. 351 was dissented from.

3. Were the question not res judicata for the purpose of the execution of the amended decree, we should have been inclined to refer to the Full Bench the question of the correctness of the ruling in Sundara v. Subbanna (1886) I.L.R. 9 M. 351.

4. We must dismiss the appeal, but under the circumstances we will make no order as to costs in this Court.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

11 queries in 0.315 seconds.