Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.15 seconds)
Documents citing Siddalingeshwar And Ors. vs Virupaxgouda And Ors. on 3 February, 2003

Motilal vs B.K.Babu Sahib on 23 May, 2019

In Siddalingeshwar and Others Vs. Virupasgouda and Others (cited supra) a compromise decree was passed in O.S.No.60 of 1994 and subsequently another suit in O.S.No.176 of 1999 was filed seeking partition. In that suit, the defendants contended that in view of the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3A CPC, the subsequent suit is barred. Under the said facts and circumstances of the case, the Karnataka High Court held that in the earlier suit at the time of passing consent decree, the interest of minor children was not safeguarded. Further, the earlier suit was filed in a representative capacity and that being so, Order 23 Rule 3B of CPC should have been http://www.judis.nic.in 25 complied with before passing compromise decree, but in that case, the said provisions not followed and hence it was held that the earlier decree is not valid, but, in this case, according to the first plaintiff , he was the absolute owner of the suit properties as per the sale deed dated 09.08.1964 and hence the provisions of Order 23 Rule 3B of CPC will not apply to this case. Therefore, the aforesaid decision also will not help the plaintiffs.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - P Rajamanickam - Full Document

K.S. Venkatesh S/O K. Swamy Rao vs N.G. Lakshminarayana S/O N. Govindappa ... on 4 April, 2007

34. A Division Bench in the case of Siddaliageshwar v. Virupaxgouda held that if no notice is issued to the persons interested in a representative suit in and as a consequence the consent decree is void under Rule 3B, then such person (who are not parties) will not be entitled, to file an application in the suit nor file an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1A. Therefore, the right to bring a separate suit seeking appropriate remedy, remains unaffected. Thus if Rule 3B is not complied with, while passing a decree on a compromise in a representative suit, any person who is affected by such compromise decree, but not a party to it may file a separate suit seeking appropriate relief in regard to such compromise decree, by way of declaration or otherwise. He may also file a suit for appropriate relief ignoring the compromise decree and such a suit will not be barred either by the principle of res judicata or estoppel. On facts it was held that in a suit fear partition where the heads of the branches alone were made parties any decision rendered would bind not only the heads of the brancehs, but also the members of the branches represented by the respective heads (who have been made parties). Therefore, a partitions suit where only the heads of branches are made parties, without impleading the other members who are entitled to shares, will he a representative suit for the purpose of Order 23 Rule 3B having regard to the explanation (d) to the said Rule. In such a representative suit no compromise can be entered into without the leave of the Court, expressly regarded in the proceedings after issuing notice to all parties interested in the suit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - N Kumar - Full Document

Gaurishankar Rukhmeshchandra Mishra vs Asaram Shankar Jagdale And Ors on 30 August, 2016

In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 pressed into service exposition of law in the cases of Khalil Haji Bholumiya Salar & Anr. Vs. Parveen w/o. Sayyeduddin Razak & Ors.9, Ramkrishna Shridhar & Ors. Vs. The Court Receiver & Ors.10, Shyam Lal and another Vs. Sohan Lal and others11, Amarnath and others 9 2012 (12) LJSOFT 417 10 2011 (1) All MR 623 11 AIR 1928 Allahabad 3 ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2016 00:43:40 ::: 5416.2012CA.odt 29 Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and another12, Siddalingeshwar and others Vs. Virupaxgouda and others13, Horil Vs. Keshav and Another14 and Hussainbhai Allarakhbhai Dariaya and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others15. It is submitted that the applicant is raising disputed questions of facts inasmuch as he wishes to prove the sale deed executed in his favour in Review Application filed in the Second Appeal. Such controversy, which is beyond scope and purview of the Second Appeal, cannot be gone into by this Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Gaurishankar Rukhmeshchandra Mishra vs Asaram Shankar Jagdale And Ors on 30 August, 2016

In support of the aforesaid contention, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1 pressed into service exposition of law in the cases of Khalil Haji Bholumiya Salar & Anr. Vs. Parveen w/o. Sayyeduddin Razak & Ors.9, Ramkrishna Shridhar & Ors. Vs. The Court Receiver & Ors.10, Shyam Lal and another Vs. Sohan Lal and others11, Amarnath and others 9 2012 (12) LJSOFT 417 10 2011 (1) All MR 623 11 AIR 1928 Allahabad 3 ::: Uploaded on - 30/08/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/08/2016 00:43:38 ::: 5416.2012CA.odt 29 Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Kanpur and another12, Siddalingeshwar and others Vs. Virupaxgouda and others13, Horil Vs. Keshav and Another14 and Hussainbhai Allarakhbhai Dariaya and others Vs. State of Gujarat and others15. It is submitted that the applicant is raising disputed questions of facts inasmuch as he wishes to prove the sale deed executed in his favour in Review Application filed in the Second Appeal. Such controversy, which is beyond scope and purview of the Second Appeal, cannot be gone into by this Court.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - S S Shinde - Full Document

Nilesh S/O Krishnakumar Kariya vs Vasantrao S/O Govindrao Padole And ... on 10 March, 2017

09. Thus, if the plaint averments are taken into consideration and which plaint averments at this stage have to be accepted as they are, it is clear that the plaint discloses cause of action for filing the suit and there is no statement in the plaint to indicate that the suit is barred by any law. Though it was strenuously urged on behalf of the applicant that the subsequent suits were barred in view of provisions of Order-XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code, said submission does not deserve acceptance at this stage. The record indicates that non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 were not parties in the earlier suit and as held in Siddalingeshwar & others [supra], such bar would not be applicable to a person who is not a party in the earlier suit.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

Nilesh S/O Krishnakumar Kariya vs Vasantrao S/O Govindrao Padole And ... on 10 March, 2017

09. Thus, if the plaint averments are taken into consideration and which plaint averments at this stage have to be accepted as they are, it is clear that the plaint discloses cause of action for filing the suit and there is no statement in the plaint to indicate that the suit is barred by any law. Though it was strenuously urged on behalf of the applicant that the subsequent suits were barred in view of provisions of Order-XXIII, Rule 3A of the Code, said submission does not deserve acceptance at this stage. The record indicates that non-applicant nos. 1 and 2 were not parties in the earlier suit and as held in Siddalingeshwar & others [supra], such bar would not be applicable to a person who is not a party in the earlier suit.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A S Chandurkar - Full Document

Mahesh S/O Murigeppa Avatagi At Avutagi vs Ishwar S/O Basappa At Basavaraj Avatagi ... on 4 March, 2024

However, the judgment in the case of Babhubali Ramappa Padnad7 is not applicable having regard to the fact that a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Siddalingeshwar & Ors., v. Virupaxgouda & Ors.,8 has considered a question as to whether the bar under Order XXIII Rule 3A of the CPC will apply if Rule 3B is not complied with. In considering the said question, this Court has held as follows:
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next