https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307605 A later civil suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was barred because the same parties had already litigated the validity of the auction sale, confirmation of sale, the defaulter's challenge, and the Deputy Commissioner's powers under Section 177 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Those issues had attained finality through revenue and writ proceedings, so the suit sought to reopen the same subject matter on the same cause of action. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied, and the settled controversy could not be re-agitated in a fresh suit. en-us Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 24 Apr 2023 21:07:34 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307605 A later civil suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession was barred because the same parties had already litigated the validity of the auction sale, confirmation of sale, the defaulter's challenge, and the Deputy Commissioner's powers under Section 177 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964. Those issues had attained finality through revenue and writ proceedings, so the suit sought to reopen the same subject matter on the same cause of action. Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 applied, and the settled controversy could not be re-agitated in a fresh suit. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 06 Mar 2018 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=307605