https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191914 The Supreme Court held that the decision in a previous suit operated as res judicata in the present case regarding a property dispute. Despite the High Court's differing view, the Supreme Court emphasized that the properties in question were the same in both suits. It was deemed unnecessary for the respondent's father to specify his capacity in the earlier suit, as a decree against the manager could bind coparceners not party to the suit. The Court cited precedents supporting that when the manager represents the family in a suit involving family property, it binds the entire family. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's decision and reinstating the trial court's judgment, with costs awarded to the appellants. en-us Thu, 13 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 02 May 2017 18:13:23 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191914 The Supreme Court held that the decision in a previous suit operated as res judicata in the present case regarding a property dispute. Despite the High Court's differing view, the Supreme Court emphasized that the properties in question were the same in both suits. It was deemed unnecessary for the respondent's father to specify his capacity in the earlier suit, as a decree against the manager could bind coparceners not party to the suit. The Court cited precedents supporting that when the manager represents the family in a suit involving family property, it binds the entire family. The appeal was allowed, overturning the High Court's decision and reinstating the trial court's judgment, with costs awarded to the appellants. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 13 Mar 1969 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=191914