Get Advice on Live Video Call
Earn $ Cash $ with
consultations on Bissoy App

A suit was filed and disposed off by a Court which had no territorial jurisdiction to try it. That judgement and decree became final. Whether the findings recorded in it operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties.

Correct Answer: No

To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition

In order for that a decision in a former suit may operate as res judicata, the court which may decide that suit must have been?
1. A civil court of competent jurisdiction
2. A court of exclusive jurisdiction
3. A court of concurrent jurisdiction 'competent to try the subsequent suit'
4. A court of limited jurisdiction competent to try the issue raised in the subsequent suit

In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?

Whether an issue heard and finally decided by a competent court of limited jurisdiction shall operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit, that the aforesaid court was not competent of try:

Existence of two suits, by parties litigating under same title, one previously instituted which is pending at present and the other filed later, wherein a matter in issue in the subsequently filed suit is directly and substantially in issue in the other and the relief claimed in the subsequent suit can effectively, be passed by the court of previous instance. Which section of Code of Civil Procedure decides the fate of the subsequently filed suit and its proceeding?

Where two or more courts have taken cognizance of the same offence and a question arises as to which of them ought to inquire into or try the offence, the question shall be decided
1. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court
2. By the High Court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the accused resides, carries on business or is engaged in a gainful employment
3. If the courts are subordinate to the same High Court, by that High Court in consultation with the State Government concerned
4. If the courts are not subordinate to the same High Court, by that court within the local limits of whose appellate criminal jurisdiction the proceedings were first commenced
Which of the above are correct?

A file a suit against B to recover possession of a house. He values his claim in the plaint at Rs. 8,000. The suit is filed in court C, which has jurisdiction to try the suit of a value upto Rs. 10,000. The market value of the house is Rs. 12,000 but B does not object to the jurisdiction of the court. The decree is passed in favour of A

A decree in a suit against certain members of a sect alleged to be wrongdoers in their individual capacity cannot operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit against the other members of the sect. The wrong complained of in the former suit was that the defendants carried an idol in procession through certain streets and that such processions were in violation of plaintiff's rights.

Consider the following statements:
1. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and one or more States.
2. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any State or States on one side and one or more other State on the other.
3. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between the Government of India and any corporation of Individual one side and one or more States on the other.
4. The Supreme Court has original jurisdiction in any dispute between two or more States.
Which of these statements are correct?

In a suit for partition, a Memorandum of Family Settlement is filed and on this basis the partition suit is decreed, but even after disposal of the suit the original Memorandum of Family Settlement remains in the file of the partition suit, then in such situation whether in a suit for eviction by one of the original co-owner of a tenant of a shop of the joint property which has fallen to the share of that co-owner as per the decree passed on the Memorandum of Family Settlement, can the certified copy of the Memorandum of Family Settlement be filed and proved as a public document in the suit against the tenant?