Related Questions

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
Under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, a suit for possession of an immovable property can be filed within:
S' a shopkeeper has kept the goods for sale on the pavement outside the shop and constructed temporary overhead shed. Flying squad of NCT of Delhi demolished the temporary construction and seized the goods from the payment, without giving him any notice. After one year, 'S' filed a suit for recovery of possession of pavement against NCT of Delhi under Section 6 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. The suit is barred as filed
Plaintiff has filed the suit for only declaration of title, though he is not in possession of suit property. The suit is barred under which provision of Specific Relief Act, 1963?
A', on 9th January, 2015 agrees to sell his immovable property to 'R' and out of the total sale consideration of Rs. 3,00,000/- receives a sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- from 'B' as advance payment and agrees to vacate the property and handover vacant peaceful physical possession thereof to 'B' and to execute the Sale Deed of the property in favour of 'B' on receipt of balance sale 'consideration' on or before 9th July, 2015. 'A' fails to vacate the property or to execute the Sale Deed or to deliver possession of the property to 'B'. 'B' after waiting patiently till 31st January, 2016, on 1st February, 2016 got issued a legal notice to 'A' to take the balance sale consideration and execute the Sale Deed and deliver vacant peaceful physical possession. 'A' vide his reply received by 'B' on 17th February, 2016 denies the agreement. The limitation of three years available to 'B' for instituting a suit for specific performance is:
In a suit filed by the plaintiff, the defendant in his written statement has taken the objection of non-impleadment of necessary party. Despite such objection the plaintiff continued the suit and the suit finally was decreed. At the first appellate stage, the plaintiff withdraws the suit with liberty to file a fresh one on the same cause of action and subsequently filed a fresh suit. The period spent by the plaintiff in the earlier suit, under section 14 of Limitation Act is
By virtue of Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, a suit for possession of an immovable property can be filed within a period of . . . . . . . . of dispossession.
In a suit for partition, a Memorandum of Family Settlement is filed and on this basis the partition suit is decreed, but even after disposal of the suit the original Memorandum of Family Settlement remains in the file of the partition suit, then in such situation whether in a suit for eviction by one of the original co-owner of a tenant of a shop of the joint property which has fallen to the share of that co-owner as per the decree passed on the Memorandum of Family Settlement, can the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement be filed and proved as a public document in the suit against the tenant?
In a suit for recovery of possession by a person dispossessed of possession of immovable property under the Specific Relief Act, which one is not the essential requirement of the suit?
Existence of two suits, by parties litigating under same title, one previously instituted which is pending at present and the other filed later, wherein a matter in issue in the subsequently filed suit is directly and substantially in issue in the other and the relief claimed in the subsequent suit can effectively, be passed by the court of previous instance. Which section of Code of Civil Procedure decides the fate of the subsequently filed suit and its proceeding?