TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Appeal on Res Judicata Dismissal Over Jain Temple Dispute</h1> <h3>Deepal and Ors. Versus Parshwanath Digamber Jain Vidyalaya Maha Mantri Shri Gulabchand</h3> The appeal challenging a judgment and decree was contested on the grounds of res judicata, involving a dispute over a Jain temple and adjacent land. The ... - Issues:1. Whether the appeal is barred by res judicata.Analysis:The judgment involves a first appeal by the defendants challenging the judgment and decree of the Civil Judge, Udaipur district. The respondents raised a preliminary objection, contending that the appeal is barred by res judicata. The dispute revolves around a Jain temple in Udaipur and adjacent vacant land. The first suit was filed by Shri Parshwanath Digamber Jain Vidyalaya Society against the defendants, alleging illegal encroachment and seeking removal of constructions and a permanent injunction. Subsequently, a counter representative suit was filed by Heeralal and Tolaram on behalf of Samast Panch Jain Agarwal residents, claiming ownership of the disputed land. The Civil Judge ruled in favor of the Vidyalaya Society in the first case, while the second suit was pending before the Additional Civil Judge. An issue was framed in the second suit regarding whether it was barred by res judicata. The Additional Civil Judge dismissed the second suit on this ground, leading to the current appeal.The doctrine of res judicata, as per Section 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, prohibits a court from trying a suit or issue if certain conditions are met, including the matter being directly and substantially in issue in a former suit between the same parties litigating under the same title. While the first four conditions were met in this case, the crucial aspect was whether the matter had been heard and finally decided by the second court. The Additional Civil Judge, in dismissing the second suit, focused solely on the issue of res judicata and did not delve into the merits of the case. It was observed that his decision was premature and lacked a final determination on the substantive issues. The judge's decision was contingent on the outcome of the pending appeal, indicating a lack of finality.Drawing from legal precedents, it was emphasized that the judgment, not the decree, creates the basis for a successful plea of res judicata. The principle of res judicata aims to prevent repeated litigation on the same cause and ensure finality in legal disputes. In this case, the appellants were not vexing the respondents twice over the same cause, as the first case had been decided, and the second suit was dismissed prematurely on res judicata grounds. Therefore, the contention that the present appeal is barred by res judicata was rejected, and the preliminary objection was dismissed. The case was directed to be listed for hearing on the merits of the appeal.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
