Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.60 seconds)
Documents citing Ramsarup Das And Ors. vs Rameshwar Das And Ors. on 26 September, 1949

Sri Krishna Singh vs Mathura Ahir And Ors on 21 December, 1979

The correctness of the decision in Ramswarup Das v. Rameshwal Das(2) is thus open to question. It does not stand to reason that when a suit is brought for possession by a mahant of an asthal or Math. Or by a shebait of a debottar property, and the defendant is adjudged to be a trespasser, such a suit should abate with the death of the mahant or shebait. This would imply that after a long drawn litigation, as he-re, the new mahant or shebait has to be relegated to a separate suit. The definition of legal representative as contained in s.2(11) of the Code reads:
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 88 - A P Sen - Full Document

Jagdish Prasad Singh vs Anandeo Narain Singh And Ors. on 14 April, 1961

In the instant case, the court below has merely refused not to carry out the directions of this Court. The court below was bound to give and has given, effect to the order dated 28th October, 1959, passed by this Court appointing the plaintiff as receiver. It has done nothing more nothing less. Even assuming that the appeal is competent, I am of the view that it is without substance. It is a well established principle of law that a partition suit does not come to an end by the passing of the preliminary decree; it continues till the passing of the final decree. The learned Government Advocate neither could nor did advance any contrary argument. He, however, placed some reliance upon the following passage (at page 190, column (2)) in the case of Ramsarup Das v. Rameshwar Das, AIR 1950 Pat 184 :
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Rita Dey vs Chandan Kumar Dey on 14 October, 1998

In the case of Ramsarup Das v. Rameshwar Das , the question arose as to whether In a case where the plaintiff suing to establish his personal right entitling him to possession of the property, on the death of the sole plaintiff the suit abates as a whole or not. The Division Bench of this Court, after interpreting the provisions of Order XXII, Rules 1 and 11 of the Code, has held that on the death of the plaintiff, in such type of suit, the suit becomes in fructuous.
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Raj Kumar Seth Since Deceased Thr His ... vs Ellora Silk Mills Pvt Ltd And Ors. on 24 April, 2026

17. The judgment of the Patna High Court in Ram Swaroop Das (supra) is apposite. The Court held that where a suit is primarily to establish a personal right to an office, which entitles the Plaintiff to possession of property, upon his death during the pendency of the suit or appeal, the right to sue does not survive, and the suit abates.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Raj Kumar Seth Since Deceased Thr His ... vs Ellora Silk Mills Pvt Ltd And Ors. on 24 April, 2026

17. The judgment of the Patna High Court in Ram Swaroop Das (supra) is apposite. The Court held that where a suit is primarily to establish a personal right to an office, which entitles the Plaintiff to possession of property, upon his death during the pendency of the suit or appeal, the right to sue does not survive, and the suit abates.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Raj Kumar Seth Since Deceased Thr His ... vs Ellora Silk Mills Pvt Ltd And Ors. on 24 April, 2026

17. The judgment of the Patna High Court in Ram Swaroop Das (supra) is apposite. The Court held that where a suit is primarily to establish a personal right to an office, which entitles the Plaintiff to possession of property, upon his death during the pendency of the suit or appeal, the right to sue does not survive, and the suit abates.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document
1