https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292819 A lease dispute addressed co-lessee joinder, res judicata, forfeiture for non-payment, and damages. The Court noted that a suit was not defeated merely because a co-lessee was not retained as co-plaintiff, since interested persons could be brought before the Court as defendants. It further stated that res judicata requires the earlier decision to have been rendered in proceedings with the same appellate competence as the later suit; a prior decree from a smaller-valued suit did not satisfy that condition. On eviction, the analysis turned on proof that the lessor caused or instigated dispossession; absent such proof, cancellation for default under the lease could be justified. Damages were rejected where loss was not proved and the cancellation was treated as lawful. en-us Wed, 16 Dec 1891 00:00:00 +0521 Sat, 09 Jan 2021 10:37:13 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292819 A lease dispute addressed co-lessee joinder, res judicata, forfeiture for non-payment, and damages. The Court noted that a suit was not defeated merely because a co-lessee was not retained as co-plaintiff, since interested persons could be brought before the Court as defendants. It further stated that res judicata requires the earlier decision to have been rendered in proceedings with the same appellate competence as the later suit; a prior decree from a smaller-valued suit did not satisfy that condition. On eviction, the analysis turned on proof that the lessor caused or instigated dispossession; absent such proof, cancellation for default under the lease could be justified. Damages were rejected where loss was not proved and the cancellation was treated as lawful. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 16 Dec 1891 00:00:00 +0521 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292819