R. VISWANATHAN versus RUKN-UL-M.ULK SYED ABDUL WAJID

R. VISWANATHAN versus RUKN-UL-M.ULK SYED ABDUL WAJID

The judgment of the Mysore High Court was not conclusive with respect to the immovable properties situated in Madras because the Mysore Court was not competent to adjudicate on those properties; however, the judgment was conclusive and binding between the parties in relation to movable properties, including company shares, even if these were situated outside Mysore. There was no sufficient proof that the Mysore Full Bench acted coram non judice, as allegations of bias or incompetence were not substantiated, and the procedural route followed did not violate natural justice. The Madras High Court correctly decreed possession of immovable property in Madras to the plaintiffs while dismissing...

Parties
Appellant: R. Viswanathan; Respondent: Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid; Respondent: Ratna Rao; Respondent: B. R. L. Iyengar; Respondent: S. Venkataicrishnan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
04 May 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeals From High Court Judgments
Outcome
Partly allowed
Legal Topics
Foreign Judgments, Res Judicata, Joint Family Property, Jurisdiction, Natural Justice
Private International Law Civil Procedure Succession Hindu Law Foreign Judgments Res Judicata Joint Family Property Jurisdiction +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R. Viswanathan

Appellant

Rukn-ul-Mulk Syed Abdul Wajid

Respondent

Ratna Rao

Respondent

B. R. L. Iyengar

Respondent

S. Venkataicrishnan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment on Appeals From High Court Judgments

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment of the Mysore High Court is conclusive in Madras with respect to immovable and movable property devised by Ramalingam's will
  2. 2 Whether the Mysore Full Bench was coram non judice due to alleged bias and incompetence
  3. 3 Whether properties in question were joint family property or self-acquired property of Ramalingam

Ratio Decidendi

The judgment of the Mysore High Court was not conclusive with respect to the immovable properties situated in Madras because the Mysore Court was not competent to adjudicate on those properties; however, the judgment was conclusive and binding between the parties in relation to movable properties, including company shares, even if these were situated outside Mysore. There was no sufficient proof that the Mysore Full Bench acted coram non judice, as allegations of bias or incompetence were not substantiated, and the procedural route followed did not violate natural justice. The Madras High Court correctly decreed possession of immovable property in Madras to the plaintiffs while dismissing...

Court Disposition

Partly allowed

Orders

  • Decree for possession of immovable properties in Madras affirmed in favour of the plaintiffs.
  • Claim in respect of movable properties (including shares) dismissed, upholding the conclusiveness of the Mysore judgment as to movables.