https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283154 An earlier competent-court finding that the vendor owned the property, the sale to the plaintiff was valid, and the defendant occupied the premises as a tenant bound the parties in later eviction proceedings. The defendant could not reopen title or assert that the property was joint family property, because any defence that might and ought to have been raised earlier was barred by constructive res judicata. With ownership and tenancy already established, the landlord-tenant relationship continued after purchase, and the defendant's denial of title and non-payment of rent supported eviction under the applicable rent control law. The decree for possession was restored. en-us Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 10 Sep 2019 15:56:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283154 An earlier competent-court finding that the vendor owned the property, the sale to the plaintiff was valid, and the defendant occupied the premises as a tenant bound the parties in later eviction proceedings. The defendant could not reopen title or assert that the property was joint family property, because any defence that might and ought to have been raised earlier was barred by constructive res judicata. With ownership and tenancy already established, the landlord-tenant relationship continued after purchase, and the defendant's denial of title and non-payment of rent supported eviction under the applicable rent control law. The decree for possession was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=283154