https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189624 Earlier adjudications on the validity of the claimed adoption and related title issues operated as res judicata and barred the plaintiff's later suit, because those questions had been finally decided after contest and bound parties litigating under the same title. The amended Explanation VIII to Section 11 extended that bar to issues decided by a court of limited jurisdiction in pending proceedings. The plaintiff's alleged adoption by Radhabai, though supported by a registered deed and other evidence, was ineffective to found an independent claim because no authority from the husband was proved where such authority was required, and the later adoption could not reopen rights already concluded. en-us Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 Sat, 14 Jan 2017 12:41:40 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189624 Earlier adjudications on the validity of the claimed adoption and related title issues operated as res judicata and barred the plaintiff's later suit, because those questions had been finally decided after contest and bound parties litigating under the same title. The amended Explanation VIII to Section 11 extended that bar to issues decided by a court of limited jurisdiction in pending proceedings. The plaintiff's alleged adoption by Radhabai, though supported by a registered deed and other evidence, was ineffective to found an independent claim because no authority from the husband was proved where such authority was required, and the later adoption could not reopen rights already concluded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 02 Aug 2000 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=189624