https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307580 A fresh jurisdictional objection raised by defendants was held to be barred by constructive res judicata because the same parties had earlier litigated jurisdiction and obtained a finding that only the civil court could entertain the possession claim. That objection was also treated as inconsistent and not bona fide. On possession, prior binding findings, final letters of administration, and earlier admissions showed the plaintiff's entitlement and negated the defendants' asserted rights as owner, tenant, or gratuitous licensee. On that basis, the court held that a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 was available and decreed recovery of vacant and peaceful possession, while ancillary protection against third-party creation remained in force until compliance. en-us Sat, 05 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Sun, 23 Apr 2023 13:57:11 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307580 A fresh jurisdictional objection raised by defendants was held to be barred by constructive res judicata because the same parties had earlier litigated jurisdiction and obtained a finding that only the civil court could entertain the possession claim. That objection was also treated as inconsistent and not bona fide. On possession, prior binding findings, final letters of administration, and earlier admissions showed the plaintiff's entitlement and negated the defendants' asserted rights as owner, tenant, or gratuitous licensee. On that basis, the court held that a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 was available and decreed recovery of vacant and peaceful possession, while ancillary protection against third-party creation remained in force until compliance. Case-Laws Indian Laws Sat, 05 Jan 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307580