https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466699 A claim for compensation for tenant improvements under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958, was held to be barred in fresh execution proceedings because it arose from the same controversy as the earlier resistance to dispossession based on leasehold rights. The Court treated Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 CPC as a complete code for deciding questions of right, title and interest in execution, and held that the compensation claim should have been raised in the earlier round. The prior liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy did not prevent the opposing party from relying on constructive res judicata under Section 11 CPC. The fresh claim was therefore not maintainable. en-us Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 17 Feb 2026 11:20:43 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466699 A claim for compensation for tenant improvements under the Kerala Compensation for Tenants Improvements Act, 1958, was held to be barred in fresh execution proceedings because it arose from the same controversy as the earlier resistance to dispossession based on leasehold rights. The Court treated Order XXI Rules 97 to 103 CPC as a complete code for deciding questions of right, title and interest in execution, and held that the compensation claim should have been raised in the earlier round. The prior liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy did not prevent the opposing party from relying on constructive res judicata under Section 11 CPC. The fresh claim was therefore not maintainable. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 05 Feb 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=466699