{"id":204131,"date":"2018-10-24T11:00:07","date_gmt":"2018-10-24T05:30:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=204131"},"modified":"2018-10-29T18:08:27","modified_gmt":"2018-10-29T12:38:27","slug":"principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Principles for applicability \u201cres judicata among co-defendants\u201d re-iterated: SC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Supreme Court: <\/strong>A Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana and M.M. Shantanagoudar, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of a Division Bench of Madras High Court whereby it allowed a letters patent appeal filed by the plaintiff in a partition suit.<\/p>\n

The plaintiff filed a suit in regard to a property dispute wherein he prayed for partition of the subject property. The trial court decreed the suit, which decision was reversed by the first appellate court on an appeal by the defendant. The plaintiff then filed a letters patent appeal thereagainst which was allowed by the said Division Bench. The facts of the matter were that earlier, the defendant and father of the plaintiff were co-defendants in two original suits relating to the same subject property filed against them. In the said suits, the court had decided in favour of the defendant\u2019s title over the subject property. Now, therefore, in the present suit, the defendant claims applicability of the doctrine of res judicata <\/em>against the plaintiff as the father of the plaintiff was a co-defendant with him in the suits wherein his title was declared over the said property.<\/p>\n

The Supreme Court, referring to a plethora of judgments reiterated the principles for the applicability of the doctrine of res judicata. <\/em>The Court cited Mahboob Sahab v. Syed Ismail, <\/em>(1995) 3 SCC 693<\/a> wherein the Supreme Court considering the applicability o the said doctrine between co-defendants held that the four conditions must be satisfied, namely-<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. There must be a conflict of interest between defendants concerned;<\/li>\n
  2. It must be necessary to decide the conflict in order to give reliefs which the plaintiff claims;<\/li>\n
  3. The question between the defendants must have been finally decided, and<\/li>\n
  4. The co-defendants were necessary or proper parties in the former suit.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Court reiterated that if a plaintiff cannot get his claimed relief without trying and deciding a case between the co-defendants, the court will try and decide the case in its entirety including the conflict of interest between the co-defendants and the co-defendants will be bound by the decree. But if the relief given to the plaintiff does not require or involve a decision of any case between co-defendants, the co-defendants will not be bound between each other.<\/p>\n

    On the facts of the instant case, the Court found that all the above conditions were not present. Therefore, no res judicata <\/em>was applicable between the parties. In light of the above and other holdings, the appeal was dismissed. [Govindammal v. Vaidiyanathan,2018 SCC OnLine SC 2117<\/b><\/a>, decided on 23-10-2018]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana and M.M. Shantanagoudar, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of a Division <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":154914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[32196,5622,2769,5353],"class_list":["post-204131","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-letters-patent-appeal","tag-partition-suit","tag-relief","tag-res-judicata"],"yoast_head":"\nPrinciples for applicability \u201cres judicata among co-defendants\u201d re-iterated: SC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Principles for applicability \u201cres judicata among co-defendants\u201d re-iterated: SC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana and M.M. Shantanagoudar, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of a Division\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-10-24T05:30:07+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-29T12:38:27+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/\",\"name\":\"Principles for applicability \u201cres judicata among co-defendants\u201d re-iterated: SC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2018-10-24T05:30:07+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-29T12:38:27+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg\",\"width\":1330,\"height\":887},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Principles for applicability \u201cres judicata among co-defendants\u201d re-iterated: SC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Principles for applicability \u201cres judicata among co-defendants\u201d re-iterated: SC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Principles for applicability \u201cres judicata among co-defendants\u201d re-iterated: SC","og_description":"Supreme Court: A Bench comprising of N.V. Ramana and M.M. Shantanagoudar, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed against the judgment of a Division","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2018-10-24T05:30:07+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-29T12:38:27+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/","name":"Principles for applicability \u201cres judicata among co-defendants\u201d re-iterated: SC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","datePublished":"2018-10-24T05:30:07+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-29T12:38:27+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","width":1330,"height":887},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/24\/principles-for-applicability-res-judicata-among-co-defendants-re-iterated-sc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Principles for applicability \u201cres judicata among co-defendants\u201d re-iterated: SC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":215002,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/05\/24\/bom-hc-findings-in-a-suit-dismissed-for-being-premature-are-not-binding-either-on-parties-or-trial-judge-law-on-res-judicata-explained\/","url_meta":{"origin":204131,"position":0},"title":"Bom HC | Findings in a suit dismissed for being premature are not binding either on parties or trial judge; law on res judicata explained","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"May 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court:\u00a0Sandeep K. Shinde, J. dismissed an appeal filed against the decree of prosecution passed in a civil suit. While dismissing the appeal the Court answered one substantial question of law -- In a case of rejection of first suit on the ground that the same was premature, and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/09\/Bombay-HC.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":207922,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/01\/10\/no-appeal-preferred-against-an-action-wrongly-decided-renders-the-matter-with-same-cause-of-action-as-res-judicata\/","url_meta":{"origin":204131,"position":1},"title":"SL CA | No appeal preferred against an action wrongly decided renders the matter with same cause of action as res judicata","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"January 10, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Sri Lanka Court of Appeal: This appeal was filed before a 2-Judge Bench comprising of A.H.M.D. Nawaz and E.A.G.R. Amarasekara, JJ. Facts of the case were such that District Judge dismissed the plaintiff\u2019s action on the premise that the plaintiff\u2019s action was barred by the law of res judicata. Plaintiff\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":258503,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/12\/15\/doctrine-of-substantive-representation\/","url_meta":{"origin":204131,"position":2},"title":"Doctrine of Substantive Representation: Can it be applied where all respondents were not present, but main contesting parties were represented? Ori HC discusses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"December 15, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: The Division Bench of Dr S. Muralidhar, CJ and A.K. Mohapatra, J., partly allowed an appeal filed in a property dispute, after applying the doctrine of substantive representation. The instant appeal was directed against the decision of the Single Judge. Background The facts of the present matter\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":296879,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/07\/15\/appeal-concurrent-jurisdiction-dimissed-fails-to-comply-test-of-s-10-of-cpc-himachal-pradesh-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":204131,"position":3},"title":"Appeal on concurrent jurisdiction stands dismissed, as it fails to comply the test of Section 10 of CPC: Himachal Pradesh HC","author":"Editor","date":"July 15, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"If plaint filed in different courts are read juxtaposing each other it cannot be concluded that similar and identical issues are involved in both the cases.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"himachal pradesh high court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/05\/himachal-pradesh-high-court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":238437,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/03\/madras-hc-succession-madras-hc-stale-claim-resurrected-for-some-other-reason-court-rejects-claim-to-property-filed-by-husband-and-son-of-alleged-coparcener\/","url_meta":{"origin":204131,"position":4},"title":"[Succession] Madras HC | “Stale claim resurrected for some other reason”: Court rejects claim to property filed by husband and son of alleged co-parcener","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 3, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Madras High Court:\u00a0R. Subramanian, J., dismissed the second appeal filed in regard to suit for partition and granting possession of share to a daughter as coparcener on finding no substantial question of law. In the instant second appeal, plaintiffs are aggrieved by the dismissal of their suit for partition and\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":204770,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/11\/03\/appeal-against-division-of-property-dismissed-on-claimants-failure-to-prove-the-case-court-of-appeal-of-sri-lanka\/","url_meta":{"origin":204131,"position":5},"title":"Appeal against division of property dismissed on claimant\u2019s failure to prove the case:\u00a0 Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"November 3, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka: An appeal was filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of M.M.A. Gaffoor, J., against a judgment of district judge where the original plaintiff instituted an action seeking partition of a land. Claim of plaintiff regarding the land was to receive undivided 1\/2 share\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/08\/Supreme-Court-of-Sri-Lanka.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204131","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=204131"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/204131\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/154914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=204131"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=204131"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=204131"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}