WILLIAMS versus LOURDUSAMY & ANR.

WILLIAMS versus LOURDUSAMY & ANR.

The principle of res judicata is not attracted because respondent No. 2 was not impleaded in the earlier suit, and no issue regarding the alleged oral agreement or title was framed or judicially decided; thus, the subsequent suit is not barred.

Parties
Appellant: Williams; Respondent No. 1: Lourdusamy; Respondent No. 2: Respondent No. 2
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
24 April 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeals allowed; impugned judgment of High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Res Judicata, Permanent Injunction, Declaration of Title, Specific Performance, Transfer of Property
Civil Procedure Res Judicata Permanent Injunction Declaration of Title Specific Performance Transfer of Property

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Williams

Appellant

Lourdusamy

Respondent No. 1

Respondent No. 2

Respondent No. 2

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Decision on Appeal From High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the principle of res judicata is applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case

Ratio Decidendi

The principle of res judicata is not attracted because respondent No. 2 was not impleaded in the earlier suit, and no issue regarding the alleged oral agreement or title was framed or judicially decided; thus, the subsequent suit is not barred.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; impugned judgment of High Court set aside.

Orders

  • Impugned judgment set aside
  • Appeals allowed