https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314487 The Privy Council upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the appellants' suit was barred by res judicata. The High Court had previously determined that Dwijapada was the rightful heir to Nistarni's estate, rejecting the appellants' claims through Gokal and Banwari. The Privy Council agreed that the res judicata doctrine applied, emphasizing the necessity of finality in legal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the respondents' absence. en-us Tue, 19 Nov 1929 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 14 Jun 2024 16:38:57 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314487 The Privy Council upheld the High Court's decision, affirming that the appellants' suit was barred by res judicata. The High Court had previously determined that Dwijapada was the rightful heir to Nistarni's estate, rejecting the appellants' claims through Gokal and Banwari. The Privy Council agreed that the res judicata doctrine applied, emphasizing the necessity of finality in legal proceedings. The appeal was dismissed, and no costs were awarded due to the respondents' absence. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 19 Nov 1929 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=314487