https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199774 The Supreme Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by res judicata and Order II, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The compromise agreement was deemed binding, settling accounts up to March 31, 1946. The court emphasized that a consent decree is as binding as an adversarial decree. The applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act was not considered due to the suit being already barred on other grounds. en-us Mon, 12 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 12 Mar 2018 16:48:04 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199774 The Supreme Court dismissed the suit, holding that the plaintiff's claim was barred by res judicata and Order II, Rule 2(3) of the Civil Procedure Code. The compromise agreement was deemed binding, settling accounts up to March 31, 1946. The court emphasized that a consent decree is as binding as an adversarial decree. The applicability of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act was not considered due to the suit being already barred on other grounds. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 12 Apr 1954 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=199774