Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Maharaja Chintamani Saran Nath Sah Deo vs Tikait Pratap Chandra Nath Sah Deo on 14 October, 1966

Mr. Karan Nath vs . Mr. Kailash Nath & Ors. on 1 October, 2014

5. Preliminary objections have been taken by the defendants no. 2 and 3 in their reply. It is stated that the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of his right in respect of the property in question and had failed to seek consequential relief for partition at the time of filing the suit and failed to seek liberty to seek such relief at a later stage therefore the bar of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC would Suit No. 380/08 Mr. Karan Nath Vs. Mr. Kailash Nath & Ors. 2/12 apply to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action. Further, it is averred that the plaint contentions would show that the applicant is challenging the family settlement dated 01.07.1992 and adjudication of the suit would amount to challenging the said family settlement and granting the liberty to file the suit afresh on the same cause of action would be barred by limitation. Further, it is averred that the plaintiff was admittedly born in the year 1997 and he had no right to challenge the family settlement dated 01.07.1992 as the right if any stood extinguished in the year 1998 i.e. three years after the plaintiff attained majority. It is argued that the present suit as well as any suit filed later would be barred by limitation. The defendants also contend that the plaintiff has failed to disclose that he has instituted various litigations with respect to his alleged right to the suit property. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and consequential relief in respect of the suit property i.e. 39, Pirthivi Raj Road in August, 2006 i.e. bearing CS(OS) No. 1630/06 in the Hon'ble Delhi High Court wherein the plaintiff had challenged the family settlement dated 01.07.1992. The plaintiff could not seek reliefs on the basis of same cause of action. It is stated that the present suit is barred U/s 11 CPC since the reliefs sought in the present suit were claimed by the plaintiff in the earlier suit no. 1630/06 vide IA No. 13150/07 and they were rejected vide order dated 02.09.2008 except that defendants would not create any third party interest in the suit property during the pendency of the said suit.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Future Builders Co-Operative Housing ... vs S. Malla Reddy And Ors. on 28 December, 2007

He also relied on Rahimbhoy Hubibbhoy v. Turner 20 I.A. 1, where it is held that a man who gets property by playing fraud and if the person on whom he played fraud files a suit for recovery of the property, the person who played the fraud has to show that the person injured by his fraud and suing to recover the property, has had clear and definite knowledge of the facts which constitute the fraud and on Khagendra Nath Mahata v. Pran Nath Roy 22.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 43 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Paras Nath vs Ram Jee And Others on 7 July, 2014

There was thus no adjudication, either actually or constructively, on the plea taken in the instant suit that the decree of the earlier suit was obtained by manipulating service of summons as also by filing a vakalatnama and written statement containing forged signatures of the plaintiff herein thereby admitting the claim, which amounted to fraud on Court. In absence of any decision, either constructively or actually, on the plea taken by the plaintiff-respondent that the earlier decree was obtained by playing fraud on court, the present subsequent suit seeking cancellation of decree on ground of fraud cannot be said to be barred by principle of res judicata. The decisions which have been cited by the learned counsel for the defendant-appellant are therefore of no help. Even otherwise, the decision of this Court in Har Bilas v. Jiwa Ram (supra) places reliance on a Privy Council decision in the case of Khagendra Nath Mahata v. Pran Nath Roy : 29 ILR Calcutta 395 where it was held that a suit for setting aside an ex parte decree and sale in execution of such decree as illegal, fraudulent and collusive was maintainable notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff had been unsuccessful in applications under sections 108 and 311 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree and sale in execution. In view of the discussion made above, this Court is of the considered view that the lower appellate court was legally justified in deciding issue no.7 in the negative.
Allahabad High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M Misra - Full Document

Vali Mohamed Jamal Mansuri vs Vali Mohamed Suleman on 26 February, 1987

In support of his aforesaid contention Mr. Advani has relied upon the decisions of the Privy Council in the case of Khagendra Nath Mahata v. Pran Nath Roy reported in (1902) 29 Ind App 99 and Choksi Bhidarbhai Mathurbhai v. Purushottamdas Bhogilal Shah . He lastly submitted that a Regular Suit may not lie to set aside an ex parte decree merely on the ground of non-service of summons but where the ex parte decree is alleged to have been obtained by the respondent by fraud, petitioner is entitled to institute a regular suit to set aside the decree on the ground of fraud, and such a suit would be maintainable even though petitioner was unsuccessful in his application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the ex parte order.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1