Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.52 seconds)
Documents citing Ramrup Rai vs Mst. Gheodhari Kuer And Ors. on 24 October, 1979

S.A. Azizullah And Anr. vs Sakthivelu And Ors. on 16 October, 1992

4. I have considered the rival submissions. All that the learned Counsel for the petitioners argues is that the possession decree, which is lawfully obtained, should atleast be executed, since admittedly there is no bar of limitation with reference to that portion of the decree and that the petitioners should not be in a worse position than a person, who has only obtained a decree for possession of the suit site and not any mandatory injunction decree for removal of the superstructure over it. There is considerable force in the argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioners. Because the mandatory injunction decree cannot be executed in view of the law of limitation, it cannot be said that the other portion of the decree, viz. the decree for possession, also cannot be executed. Just as in the abovesaid Duraisami Mudaliar v. Ramasami Chettiar 92 L.W. 144 even in Ramrup Rai v. Gheodhari Kuer , is also a case where there is no decree for mandatory injunction, but there is only a decree for possession of the site. There also, it has been observed as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

K. Adikanda Patra And Ors. vs Gandua And Ors. on 25 September, 1982

11. Mr. Ratho in support of his contention that the proceeding in Revenue Misc. Case No. 109/72 is barred by the principles of constructive res judicata cited decisions reported in AIR 1958 Andh Pra 1 (FB) (Venkataseshayya v. Viryya), AIR 1962 Pat 72 (FB) (Baijnath Prasad Sah v. Ramphal Sahni), AIR 1969 Pat 21 (Bijali Bala Das v. Charu Bala Ash), AIR 1977 SC 1680 (State of Uttar Pradesh v. Nawab Hussain), 42 Cut LT 927: (AIR 1977 Ori 16) (Petambar Pujari v. Bhikari Meher), AIR 1979 Ori 37 (Ananta Jena v. Deity Shri Gopinath Jew), AIR 1980 Pat 197 (Ramrup Rai v. Mst.
Orissa High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M. Vishnuvardhana Reddy vs Saya Nagappa on 27 September, 1999

In the present case, all those conditions prescribed for constitution of res judicata are fulfilled. The order dated 14-10-1998 in EP No.316 of 1997 is between the same parties and the parties are agitating under the same title. The said order is by a competent Court and the matter in issue is substantially the same. The order dated 14-10-1998 determined the disobedience of the judgment-debtor, but he wants that it should be redetermined again. Therefore, the earlier order dated 14-10-1998 deciding the same issue would definitely operate as res judicata for the present application. The judgment-debtor being absent and ex parte does not get any extra privilege and if he fails to raise the objections now raised, when an opportunity was given to him in EP No.316 of 1997, the matter would be hit by principle of constructive res judicata in terms of Section 11 CPC. To the same effect also is the judgment of the Patna High Court reported in Ramrup Rai v. Gheodhari Kuer (supra). The Division Bench of that Court ruled that after service of notice in execution petition if the judgment-debtor did not file any objections in terms of Section 47 read with Order 21, Rules 22 and 23, the order passed in the execution petition would operate as res judicata for his subsequent petition. I think it appropriate to extract the relevant part of the judgment as under:
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - B S Raikote - Full Document

Chanceteam Investments Ltd. vs R.D. Ramanath Company And Ors. on 1 March, 2004

In Ramrup Rai (supra) the Division Bench of the Patna High Court held that if in spite of service of notice the judgment debtor fails to raise a objection which he might and ought to have raised at that stage, the court in passing the order for execution of the decree must be deemed to have decided the objection against him and that ordinarily the court does not pass an express order to the effect that the decree be executed as that order is implied in the order for issue of warrant of attachment.
Delhi High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - M Sharma - Full Document

Rajammal (Died) And Ors. vs The Idol Of Sri Thanthonneeswaraswami ... on 16 November, 1992

However, opportunity should be given to the appellants to remove the superstructure by themselves. Accordingly I grant a month's time for the appellants to remove the superstructure themselves. If within that time they do not remove the superstructure, the respondent-plaintiff could execute the decree and take possession of the land along with the superstructure. It has also so held in Duraiswami Mudaliar v. Ramaswami Chettiar 92 L.W. 144 and Ramrup Rai v. Gheodhari Kuer and also my own judgment in S.A. Azizullah and Anr. v. Sakthivelu and Ors. C.R.P. No. 173 of 1992, dated 16.10.1992.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

S.B.Pradeep vs ) The Karnataka Industrial Area on 26 November, 2016

In this regard, learned counsel for plaintiff placed reliance reported in AIR 1980 73 O.S.No.2268/1996 PATNA 197 in Ramrup Rai vs. Mst.Gheodhari Kuer & others wherein it was held in para-8 "It cannot be disputed that where the defendant puts up construction pendent elite or after the passing of the decree, then the executing Court can order demolition of the structures and deliver vacant possession. But where the constructions are put up before the institution of the suit, the executing Court cannot order demolition of the structures, but would simply deliver possession of the land and the buildings after removal of the judgment-debtor there from. In either case, however, the Court may before ordering delivery of possession give time to the judgment-debtor to remove himself the materials."
Bangalore District Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Vranda G. Pai, Prop. M/S. Shrinivas ... vs Mr. Rajan Arjun Keni And Ors on 10 October, 2017

20] The plea that there was lack of opportunity to the judgment debtors is also entirely misplaced. This is a case where more than ample opportunities have been granted to the judgment debtors even though, the record indicates that the judgment debtors are bent upon abusing the judicial process by repeatedly raising objections, which have already been rejected over and again. 21] The Full Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Baijnath Prasad Sahni vs. Ramphal Sahni 2 and Ramrup Rai vs. Gheodhari Kuer3 have held that the principles of constructive res judicata apply to execution proceedings as well. The proposition is summarised in the following terms:-
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - M S Sonak - Full Document

Bhanu Shankar Raikwar vs Vijay Shankar Raikwar on 1 February, 2018

11. The above Full Bench decision has been further followed by a Division Bench of the Patna High Court in the case of Ramrup Rai vs. Mst. Gheodhari Kuer and others, AIR 1980 Patna 197, wherein it is held that in spite of service of notice, the judgment-debtor fails to raise an objection which he might and ought to have have raised at that stage, the Court in passing the 8 order for execution of the decree must be deemed to have decided the objection against him. Ordinarily the court does not pass an express order to the effect that the decree be executed. That order is implied in the order for the issue of attachment. The relevant portion of para 7 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next