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.

In Re: Ayisha Bibi Ammal

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Dec 01, 1924
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/820928

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
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Property;Civil

Case Summary

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

-

Key legal issue
Property;Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Ayisha Bibi Ammal

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1925Mad1167; 87Ind.Cas.705

Excerpt

- 1. we think the judgment of innes, j., in o.s. no. 5 of 1877 makes the present suit res judicata. the original side of the high court was certainly competent to take cognizance of the present suit with reference to the value of the suit. we are of opinion that competency in section h, civil p.c., has reference to the value of suit and not to the territorial jurisdiction. no authority has been cited against this view by the learned vakil for the appellant. the property which is now the subject of this suit was also the subject of the former suit. the plaintiff has not pleaded that, in spite of the settlement of 1876 and the decree in o.s. no. 5 of 1877, she was in possession of the suit properties adversely to those who are entitled to them under the settlement and decree and acquired a title by adverse possession. even if the allegation of possession in the plaint put was meant to raise this no issue was taken.2. the second appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

1. We think the judgment of Innes, J., in O.S. No. 5 of 1877 makes the present suit res judicata. The Original Side of the High Court was certainly competent to take cognizance of the present suit with reference to the value of the suit. We are of opinion that competency in Section H, Civil P.C., has reference to the value of suit and not to the territorial jurisdiction. No authority has been cited against this view by the learned vakil for the appellant. The property which is now the subject of this suit was also the subject of the former suit. The plaintiff has not pleaded that, in spite of the settlement of 1876 and the decree in O.S. No. 5 of 1877, she was in possession of the suit properties adversely to those who are entitled to them under the settlement and decree and acquired a title by adverse possession. Even if the allegation of possession in the plaint put was meant to raise this no issue was taken.

2. The second appeal is dismissed.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial