<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2005 (7) TMI 709 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276782</link>
    <description>In a suit for injunction, where rival claims to ownership and possession are directly and substantially involved, the determination on title operates as res judicata in a later suit between the same parties or their privies. Matters that could and ought to have been raised in the earlier proceedings are also barred by constructive res judicata under Explanation IV. The prior decree therefore precluded the subsequent title-based suit, and the challenge failed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 03 Mar 2025 12:53:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=542418" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2005 (7) TMI 709 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276782</link>
      <description>In a suit for injunction, where rival claims to ownership and possession are directly and substantially involved, the determination on title operates as res judicata in a later suit between the same parties or their privies. Matters that could and ought to have been raised in the earlier proceedings are also barred by constructive res judicata under Explanation IV. The prior decree therefore precluded the subsequent title-based suit, and the challenge failed.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Jul 2005 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=276782</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>