https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289723 Proceedings on the same property dispute were barred by res judicata because the identity of the land and title had already been finally decided by a competent court. The earlier determination that the land formed part of Survey No. 129/68 Paiki, and not Survey Nos. 129/51 or 129/52, could not be reagitated in later proceedings involving the same controversy. As the matter in issue had been directly and substantially adjudicated, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to continue the case. The jurisdictional objection therefore succeeded. en-us Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 17 Aug 2020 22:37:51 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289723 Proceedings on the same property dispute were barred by res judicata because the identity of the land and title had already been finally decided by a competent court. The earlier determination that the land formed part of Survey No. 129/68 Paiki, and not Survey Nos. 129/51 or 129/52, could not be reagitated in later proceedings involving the same controversy. As the matter in issue had been directly and substantially adjudicated, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction to continue the case. The jurisdictional objection therefore succeeded. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 11 Apr 2017 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289723