TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1969 (3) TMI 91
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s appeal. The facts of the case leading up to this appeal, briefly stated, are as follows : One Krishen Gopal had lease-hold rights in the suit properties. After the death of the aforesaid Krishen Gopal dispute arose between Jawala Prashad, the father of the appellants and Banwari Lal Verma, the father of the respondents as to the title of the suit properties. Each one of them claimed that those properties had been gifted to him by Krishen Gopal. As a result of this dispute Jawala Prashad instituted on January 20, 1943, Civil Suit No. 15 of 1943 against Banwari Lal Verma claiming possession of the suit properties on the strength of the alleged gift in his favour. In defence Banwari Lal Verma pleaded that those properties had been gifted to....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 26, 1969 Therefore, naturally the gift, if true could have been accepted only by Banwari Lal Verma who was the Karta of the family at that time. It. was not even urged that Banwari Lal Verma did not safeguard the interest of his family while contesting the previous suit. Further it is not the case of the respondents that there was any conflict of interest between Banwari Lal Verma and his sons. The facts disclosed make it obvious that Banwari Lal Verma and after his death his sons are availing themselves of every possible loophole in our judicial system to delay, if not defeat the course of justice. The effort is one, and continuous. The suit from which this appeal has arisen is a clear abuse of judicial process. It is in this setting that....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ger may operate as res-judicata against coparceners who were not parties to the suit that the plaint or written statement should state in express terms that he is suing as manager or is being sued as a manager. It is sufficient if the manager was in fact suing or being sued as representing the whole family, see Lalchand v. Sheogovind (1929) I.L.R.8, Pat. 788.; Ram Kishan v. Ganga Ram (1931) I.L.R. 12, Lab. 428; Prithipal V. Rameshwar (1927) I.L.R. 2, Luck. 288; Surendranath v. Sambhunath (1928) I.L.R. 55, Cal. 210. The suit by or against the manager will deemed to be one brought by him or against him as representing the family if the circumstances of the case show that he is the manager of the family and the property involved in the suit i....