https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78971 A substantial delay in refiling the second appeal was not condoned because the explanation for misplacing the paper book was found unsatisfactory. The later suit for declaration of ownership and possession was barred, as the plaintiffs' earlier challenge to title had already been finally rejected, so the same controversy could not be reopened. The claim was also hit by constructive res judicata because the joint Hindu family property plea could have been raised earlier, and the suit was treated as time-barred in view of the long lapse after the prior adjudication and the defendants' settled possession. The concurrent findings were upheld and no substantial question of law arose. en-us Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 28 Dec 2010 23:05:54 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78971 A substantial delay in refiling the second appeal was not condoned because the explanation for misplacing the paper book was found unsatisfactory. The later suit for declaration of ownership and possession was barred, as the plaintiffs' earlier challenge to title had already been finally rejected, so the same controversy could not be reopened. The claim was also hit by constructive res judicata because the joint Hindu family property plea could have been raised earlier, and the suit was treated as time-barred in view of the long lapse after the prior adjudication and the defendants' settled possession. The concurrent findings were upheld and no substantial question of law arose. Case-Laws Customs Wed, 08 Sep 2010 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=78971