SIDRAMAPPA versus RAJASHETTY AND ORS.

SIDRAMAPPA versus RAJASHETTY AND ORS.

The cause of action in the prior suit did not form the foundation of the present suit; the earlier suit was for a declaration of status in execution proceedings and not for possession on title, and thus the subsequent suit for possession based on title is not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Parties
Appellant / Plaintiff: Sidramappa; Respondents / Defendants: Rajashetty and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 December 1969
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated October 18, 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 56 of 1963.
Outcome
Appeal allowed.
Legal Topics
Order 2 Rule 2 CPC, Cause of Action, Specific Relief, Title to Property, Suits for Possession

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sidramappa

Appellant / Plaintiff

Rajashetty and Others

Respondents / Defendants

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From the Judgment and Decree Dated October 18, 1968 of the Mysore High Court in Regular First Appeal No. 56 of 1963.

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's claim for possession of the suit properties was barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

The cause of action in the prior suit did not form the foundation of the present suit; the earlier suit was for a declaration of status in execution proceedings and not for possession on title, and thus the subsequent suit for possession based on title is not barred by Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed.

Orders

  • Trial court's decree modified by including the lands mentioned in Schedule I into the decree for possession.
  • Otherwise, the decree of the trial court sustained.