Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Gobind Ram Vs. Ram Chander

Gobind Ram vs Ram Chander

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Jul 02, 1917
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/477553

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Civil Procedure Code (Act V of 1908), Section 11 - Res judicata--Suit on pro-note and sale-deed--Subsequent suit for breach of covenant of indemnity in sale-deed, maintainability of. - - I have examined the record and I am Satisfied that the plaintiff in the former suit was not litigating under the same title as i...

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gobind Ram

Respondent

Ram Chander

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1917All261; 42Ind.Cas.895

Excerpt

civil procedure code (act v of 1908), section 11 - res judicata--suit on pro-note and sale-deed--subsequent suit for breach of covenant of indemnity in sale-deed, maintainability of. - - i have examined the record and i am satisfied that the plaintiff in the former suit was not litigating under the same title as in the present suit. that suit having failed, the plaintiff is now suing upon a covenant of indemnity forming part of the conveyance executed by ram chander in his favour, according to which ram chander is bound to indemnify; in the alternative, the plaintiff may be regarded as claiming from ram chander whatever money the court may find to have actually passed from the plaintiff to ram chander at the time of the conveyance in favour of the former as money paid on a consideration which has failed. the suit is one to which ram chander may have a good defence, but it should be tried to the merits, as it is not barred by the provisions of section 11 of the code of civil procedure.1. this is an application in revision against an order of a court of small causes by which a certain suit brought by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs, upon the single finding that it was barred by the rule of res judicata by reason of the result of a previous suit in which the same parties had been concerned. i have examined the record and i am satisfied that the plaintiff in the former suit was not litigating under the same title as in the present suit. in the former suit he claimed certain money on the basis of a pro-note executed by one muhammed ali khan in favour of the defendant ram chander plus a sale-deed by which ram chander had transferred his rights under the pro-note to the present plaintiff. that suit having failed, the plaintiff is now suing upon a covenant of indemnity forming part of the conveyance executed by ram chander in his favour, according to which ram chander is bound to indemnify; him in the event of any suit brought by him against muhammad ali khan failing. in the alternative, the plaintiff may be regarded as claiming from ram chander whatever money the court may find to have actually passed from the plaintiff to ram chander at the time of the conveyance in favour of the former as money paid on a consideration which has failed. the suit is one to which ram chander may have a good defence, but it should be tried to the merits, as it is not barred by the provisions of section 11 of the code of civil procedure. i set aside the decree of the court below and remand the case to that court with directions to restore it to its file of pending cases and dispose of it according to law. costs here and hither to will abide the event.

Full Judgment

1. This is an application in revision against an order of a Court of Small Causes by which a certain suit brought by the plaintiff was dismissed with costs, upon the single finding that it was barred by the rule of res judicata by reason of the result of a previous suit in which the same parties had been concerned. I have examined the record and I am Satisfied that the plaintiff in the former suit was not litigating under the same title as in the present suit. In the former suit he claimed certain money on the basis of a pro-note executed by one Muhammed Ali Khan in favour of the defendant Ram Chander plus a sale-deed by which Ram Chander had transferred his rights under the pro-note to the present plaintiff. That suit having failed, the plaintiff is now suing upon a covenant of indemnity forming part of the conveyance executed by Ram Chander in his favour, according to which Ram Chander is bound to indemnify; him in the event of any suit brought by him against Muhammad Ali Khan failing. In the alternative, the plaintiff may be regarded as claiming from Ram Chander whatever money the Court may find to have actually passed from the plaintiff to Ram Chander at the time of the conveyance in favour of the former as money paid on a consideration which has failed. The suit is one to which Ram Chander may have a good defence, but it should be tried to the merits, as it is not barred by the provisions of Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I set aside the decree of the Court below and remand the case to that Court with directions to restore it to its file of pending cases and dispose of it according to law. Costs here and hither to will abide the event.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial