TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
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
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the subsequent suit for partition and separate possession of item 2 was barred by res judicata because the property had been included in the earlier partition suit but omitted from the preliminary decree by mistake. (ii) Whether rejection of the earlier review application for non-payment of court fee precluded the present suit.
Issue (i): Whether the subsequent suit for partition and separate possession of item 2 was barred by res judicata because the property had been included in the earlier partition suit but omitted from the preliminary decree by mistake.
Analysis: The earlier appellate judgment had already decided that the property was joint family property and that the plaintiff was entitled to a share. The omission to include the item in the preliminary decree was found to be accidental and not the result of any adjudication against the plaintiff. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applies only where the matter in issue has been heard and finally decided. An omission caused by mistake, where the claim was in fact raised and accepted in principle, does not amount to a conclusive decision against the claimant.
Conclusion: The suit was not barred by res judicata and was maintainable.
Issue (ii): Whether rejection of the earlier review application for non-payment of court fee precluded the present suit.
Analysis: The review application was not rejected on merits but only for non-payment of court fee. Such an order does not finally decide the substantive rights in dispute, and a review proceeding is not itself a suit so as to create res judicata on the underlying claim.
Conclusion: The rejection of the review application did not bar the present suit.
Final Conclusion: The appellate court held that the plaintiff's claim could proceed notwithstanding the earlier partition proceedings and the rejected review application, and the trial court's decree was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: A matter is not barred by res judicata unless it was actually heard and finally decided; an accidental omission of a claimed item from a partition decree, or a non-merits rejection of review, does not conclusively determine the substantive right.
TaxTMI 
