AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
7 paragraphs · 170 wordsWe consider that the decree in suit No. 241 of 1886 on the Mannargudi Munsif''s file was a final decree in as much as it decreed according to
the last clause of Section 92 of the Transfer of Property Act that in case of default in payment within the stipulated time, the plaintiff was to be
debarred of his right of redemption. Orders passed u/s 93 are in our opinion merely supplementary to the decree u/s 92, showing whether the
terms of the decree have or have not been fulfilled. It is clear that in this case when the three months'' time allowed in the decree had elapsed
without payment having been made, the decree became a final decree without any farther orders being required. That decree then being a final one
after confirmation in appeal, the present suit being based on precisely the same cause of action as in that suit, is of course barred as res judicata.
The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.