1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
TaxTMI Login
🚀 New: Section-Wise Filter ✕
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule — now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available
2. New: “In Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
<h1>Supreme Court affirms Mysore High Court on land ownership dispute, emphasizing res judicata principle.</h1> The Supreme Court upheld the Mysore High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal against the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The case ... - Issues:Challenge to order of Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal; Interpretation of Bombay Hereditary Officers Act; Revision of findings of fact in a writ petition.Analysis:The case involved an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Mysore High Court, where the High Court dismissed a petition under articles 226 and 227 filed by the appellants to challenge the order of the Mysore Revenue Appellate Tribunal. The dispute arose from the restoration of certain lands under the Bombay Hereditary Officers Act, where the appellants claimed possession against the respondents. The Assistant Commissioner initially accepted the application for restoration, but subsequent appeals and revisions led to conflicting decisions regarding the ownership of the lands. The High Court had earlier directed the Tribunal not to reopen findings of fact in revision, which the Tribunal adhered to in its subsequent order. The appellants contended that the Tribunal's decision was erroneous, but the Supreme Court held that the High Court's judgment was final and binding on the parties. The principle of res judicata was invoked, emphasizing that once an order becomes final, it is binding in subsequent stages of the same proceeding. Therefore, the Tribunal could not revisit the questions of fact already decided by the lower authorities. Consequently, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal without costs.In conclusion, the Supreme Court affirmed the dismissal of the appeal, emphasizing the finality of the High Court's judgment and the application of the principle of res judicata in preventing the reopening of settled questions of fact. The judgment highlighted the importance of abiding by previous court decisions and the binding nature of final orders in subsequent stages of legal proceedings.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
