Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 98 (4.89 seconds)
Documents citing Merla Ramanna vs Nallaparaju And Others on 4 November, 1955

Sukhdev Rai Kaushal vs Gokal Chand Mittal on 26 August, 2013

The judgment in 'Merla Ramanna v. Nallaparaju and others' (supra) is not applicable in the present case, as in the aforesaid judgment the question raised was whether the Court, which actually passed the decree, does not lose its jurisdiction to execute it by reasoning of the subject matter thereof being transferred subsequently to the jurisdiction of another Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - R K Garg - Full Document

Jugal Kishore Singh vs Mst. Lakshmi Kumari And Ors. on 2 February, 1980

Under the decree the defendants were ordered to be evicted from the house and as it appears to me, it was only to allay the apprehension of the decree holder Jugal Kishore Singh that Toni Mahton, having claimed to be in possession of the property in dispute, might put obstruction in his getting delivered of possession. From that it does not follow that Toni Mahton was also made liable for the arrears of rent and costs which was not specifically claimed nor awarded against him but was awarded against Raghunandan Chain, who was, on the case of Jugal Kishore himself, his tenant on a monthly rental of Rs. 18/-. That being so Toni was not liable under the decree and the Executing Court had no jurisdiction to sell his properties under the terms thereof. The sale was thus in excess of what the decree directed and was, therefore, void -- See Merla Ramanna v. Nallaparaju, (AIR 1956 SC 87). Since no decree was passed against Toni, the question of joint decree being passed against him does not arise.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ram Dayal And Ors. vs Smt. Kisturi And Ors. on 29 January, 1970

3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that though the Munsif Court, Shahpura, was not the Court, which had passed the decree or to which it had been sent for execution, it had inherent jurisdiction to execute it, because the judgment-debtors had their residence as well as their movable aud immovable properties within its jurisdiction and it was the only Court which could effectively execute the decree. The Munsif Court at Kotputli might be the Court, which had passed the decree, it could not give any relief to the decree-holders except making an order of transfer of decree under Section 39, Civil Procedure Coda. Reliance was placed on Ramanna v. Nallaparaju, AIR 1956 SC 87, Moher Singh v. Kasturi Ram, AIR 1962 Punj 394 (FB) and Balkrishanayya v. Linga Rao, AIR 1943 Mad 449. It is contended that at best the Munsif Court, Shahpura committed an irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in entertaining the execution application without an order of transfer from the Munsif Court, Kotputli. But the judgment-debtors have waived that objection, because in the first execution application in spite of service of notice upon them they did not raise such objection and the Court proceeded to pass an order for rateable distribution from the assets realised by the Court in execution of another decree. It was, therefore, not open to the judgment-debtors to challenge the jurisdiction of the Munsif Court, Shahpura to execute the decree in the present execution application.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Hamir Singh vs Bhawani Shankar on 21 September, 1979

In Merla Ramanna v. Nallaparaju AIR 1956 SC 87, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the court to whose jurisdiction the subject-matter of the decree is transferred acquires inherent Jurisdiction over the same by reason of such transfer, and if it entertains an execution application with reference thereto, it would at the worst be an irregular assumption of jurisdiction and not a total absence of it and if objection to ft is not taken at the earliest opportunity, it must be deemed to have been waived, and cannot be raised at any later stage of the proceedings.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 17 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shah Shivlal Bhogilal vs Shah Vadilal Dipchand on 6 February, 1968

5. The question, therefore, is whether it is the Chanasma Court or the Harij Court that has jurisdiction to entertain the execution application or whether both the Courts have jurisdiction to the matter. On this question, there is a conflict of judicial opinion. As considered by their Lordships of the Supreme Court to Merla Ramanna v. Nallaparaju, AIR 1956 SC 87, remarks at p. 93:
Gujarat High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next