Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Dhondo Khando vs Waman Balwant on 4 January, 1944

Padmaram And Ors. vs Surja And Ors. on 17 December, 1959

634, Sakkarai Chettiar v. Chellappa Chettiar, AIR 1938 Mad 374, Mahadeo v. Baleshwar Prasad, AIR 1939 All 626 and Dhondo Khando v. Waman Balwant, AIR 1945 Bom 126; while learned counsel for the respondents placed equally strong reliance on Balaram v. Kanysha Mashi, AIR 1919 Cal 410, Naimuddin Biswas v. Maniruddin Lashkar, AIR 1928 Cal 184, Amin Chand v. Baldeo Sahai, AIR 1934 Lah 206, Pir Bakhsh v. Kidar Nath, AIR 1935 Lah 478, Ramphal Sahu v. Satdeo Jha, AIR 1940 Pat 346 (FB), Malobi v. Gaus Mohamad, AIR 1949 Nag 91, Sonahar Ali v. Mukbul Ali, AIR 1956 Assam 164 and Reghu Sutar v. Nrusingha Nath, AIR 1959 Orissa 148.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 15 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ghaki Mal Hukam Chand And Ors. vs Punjab National Bank Ltd. on 16 February, 1959

8. Mr. Daya Kishan Mahajan next urged that the decree of the Court below has proceeded on grounds common to all the judgment-debtors and it was open to anyone of the defendants to appeal from the whole decree and to pray to the appellate Court for the reversal of the decree as against all the defendants. The provision of Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure docs clearly confer this right on one of the several defendants against whom 3 decree is passed which proceeds on ground common to all. The learned counsel has also referred us to Dhondo Khando v. Waman Balwant, AIR 1945 Bom 126, Kehr Singh v. Emperor AIR 1933 Lah 933 (1), Chuni Lal Tulsiram v. Amin Chand, AIR 1933 Lah 350 (2) and Mt. Krishna Dei v. Governor-General-in-Council, AIR 1950 All 1.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 9 - I D Dua - Full Document

Cheladma Venkata Ram Rao vs Engu Narayana And Ors. on 3 August, 1962

Dhendo Khando v. Waman Balwant, AIR 1945 Bom 126 which followed ILR 27 Bom 284 was a case which essentially dealt with the validity of a decree on the basis of partial representation of the estate. The appellant, a Hindu coparcener, filed a suit against the respondent and two others for partition of his alleged half share in land and for mesn, profits, The suit was dismissed with costs. He preferred an appeal to the District Court against the decree. But pending that appeal, he died. His younger son Waman and his elder son Chintaman were brought on record as his legal representatives and that appeal also was dismissed. Both of them filed a second appeal, and during the pendency of this appeal in the High Court, the elder son, Chintaman, died. That fact, however, was not brought to the notice of the Court, and the appeal was allowed and the suit was decreed with costs. Thereafter. Waman and the son of the deceased appellant Chintaman, filed an application for partition of the suit property in accordance with the decree of the High Court. That application was opposed by the judgment-debtor, who contended that the decree passed by the High Court in the second appeal was a nullity, inasmuch as the heir and legal representative of the deceased Chintaman had not been brought on record before the decree of the High Court was passed and that therefore no execution of that decree could be taken out.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 30 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1