Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (2.00 seconds)
Documents citing Suresh Mohan Thakur vs Shamal Mall Bubna on 28 January, 1957

Ranchore Prasad Narain Singh And Anr. vs Bibi Tahzibunisa on 7 July, 1967

6. The explanation to Section 47 says that for the purposes of this Section a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed, a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed and a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree are parties to the suit. The words "and a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree" were added by the amending Act of 1956. This Explanation was construed not to cover the cases of those who were not necessary party to the suit and whose names were struck off from the plaint before the decision of the suit. The above-discussed contention was put forward by Mr. S. Asghar Hussain on account of the aforesaid construction put on the Explanation in Judicial decisions. Even in cases where a party had no concern with the suit, but his name was not removed from the record, it was held that he was not a party to the suit for the purposes of Section 47, Discussions in these decisions, however, leave no room for doubt that in a case where the plaintiff abandons the claim against a defendant and the suit is dismissed as against him, he is a party to the suit for the purpose of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Bench decision of this Court in the case of Suresh Mohan Thakur v. Shatnal Mall Bubna , after discussing the various decisions of the different High Courts on the point took the same view.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Md. Zamiruddin And Ors. vs Mrs. Fatima Ahmad And Ors. on 24 January, 1978

Thereafter, in a Bench decision of this Court in Protap Chandra Singh v. Nibaran Kumar Mitra (AIR 1974 Pat 135), Untwalia, Chief Justice, as he then was, and S. K. Jha, J. held by reference to the passage quoted above in the case of Rupchand Gupta that the proposition laid down in Suresh Mohan Thakur's case that a sub-lessee is a necessary party no longer holds good. Therefore, the proposition of law is settled now that in a suit for eviction by the landlord, a sub-lessee is not a necessary party. I have already stated that the plaintiff's case is that defendants Nos. 11 to 28 are the sub-tenants under defendants Nos. 1 to 10 and hence, if subsequently, the plaintiff made a prayer to expunge the name of defendant No. 25, who, on the pleading of the parties, is a sub-tenant, the suit would not abate, because defendant No. 25 was not a necessary party to be impleaded in the suit.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bimal Kumar vs Shivanandan Prasad Chowdhary And Anr. on 12 May, 1978

9. Counsel for the opposite parties conceded that for the purpose of Section 11A of the Act the word "tenant" will not include a sub-lessee Inducted without the consent of the landlord. He. however, drew my attention to the Bench decision in the case of Suresh v. Shamal (ILR 36 Pat 424) : (AIR 1957 Pat 437) where it was held by a Bench of this Court that 'tenant' included a 'sub-lessee'. In that view of the matter, my first re-action was to refer this case to a larger Bench for considering the correctness of the decision in that case, Counsel for the parties, however, persuaded me to decide the case on the limited point since the civil revision petition itself has been lying in this Court for over a year and the order has been in suspense for the last one year and a half and the plaintiff-opposite party is suffering injury on that account. It is said that he is not interested in getting the law settled and in no more than getting the case disposed of. It appears that the aforesaid decision was cited before Tarkeshwar Nath.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Protap Chandra Singh vs Nibaran Kumar Mitra And Anr. on 21 September, 1973

3. Secondly, even assuming that he appellant was a necessary or proper party, in the instant case he was impleaded as a party defendant. On the hidings that he had no independent title, his right, title and interest in the premises depended upon the lease which had been granted by respondent No. 1 to respondent No. 2. On the termination of that lease, the sub-lease fell to the ground. In a suit for eviction against a lessee, a decree for eviction could very well be passed against the sub-lessee inducted by the lessee without the consent of the lessor. It must be remembered that a tenancy is created under the Transfer of Property Act only by privity of contract between the lessor and the [essee, and such a lease requires determination by a valid notice under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act Even assuming on the basis of the decision in Suresh Mohan Thakur's case that the appellant had become a statutory tenant, it is plain that he had not become a contractual tenant under the plaintiff requiring the determination of the tenancy by service of a valid notice. For passing a decree for eviction against him treating him as a statutory tenant, the requirements under the Act were to be satisfied which have been satisfied in this case. There was no independent right, title and interest on which the appellant could rely to defend the action.
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - N L Untwalia - Full Document
1