https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310795 A later mortgage suit was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 or the res judicata principle in Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC where the earlier action had been framed as a refund claim on the footing that the mortgage was invalid and the causes of action were different. The court also held that the mortgage consideration was proved only to the extent of the admitted payments amounting to 3,000, with the remaining recitals unproved. The decree was therefore confined to the amount actually established, with corresponding adjustment of interest and deletion of the personal decree and surplus directions. en-us Fri, 08 Nov 1940 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 17 Nov 2023 13:14:03 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310795 A later mortgage suit was not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 or the res judicata principle in Explanation IV to Section 11 CPC where the earlier action had been framed as a refund claim on the footing that the mortgage was invalid and the causes of action were different. The court also held that the mortgage consideration was proved only to the extent of the admitted payments amounting to 3,000, with the remaining recitals unproved. The decree was therefore confined to the amount actually established, with corresponding adjustment of interest and deletion of the personal decree and surplus directions. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 08 Nov 1940 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310795