TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- 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.
Issues: Whether a decree for possession and mesne profits could be passed under Order 12 Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 notwithstanding that issues had been framed, and whether the prior finding that the appellant was a trespasser and not a tenant, having attained finality, justified dismissal of the appeal.
Analysis: The prior appellate finding in the earlier suit, that the appellant was a trespasser and not a tenant in the premises, had attained finality, and therefore the same issue could not be reopened in the present suit. Framing of issues did not, by itself, compel a trial where further evidence was unnecessary. The existence of issues on the record was no legal bar to disposal of the suit on admissions under Order 12 Rule 6. In view of the final and binding finding on possession status, the respondent was entitled to a decree for possession, and mesne profits were correctly confined to the rate claimed by the appellant as tenancy rent.
Conclusion: The decree based on the final finding and the application of Order 12 Rule 6 was upheld, and the appeal failed.
Final Conclusion: The appellant could not avoid the decree by relying on framed issues or an unproven challenge to the earlier finding, and the respondent's entitlement to possession stood affirmed.
Ratio Decidendi: Framing of issues does not preclude a decree on admissions where the decisive finding has already attained finality and no trial on the same issue is legally necessary.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
