Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.46 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Gema Coutinho Rodrigues vs Bricio Francisco Pereira And Others on 2 April, 1993

Rajasekaran Pillai vs Kaliyaperumal on 20 December, 2013

In [1993] 2 Supreme Court Cases 620 [Gema Coutinho Rodrigues (SMT) Vs. Bricio Francisco Pereira and others], one of the plaintiffs died and his daughter filed a petition to come on record. But the learned trial Judge dismissed the petition holding all his successors ought to have been made parties, but the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order and held as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - K Kalyanasundaram - Full Document

Nimai Charan Nayak vs Gourahari Nayak on 13 October, 2017

4. Considering the rival contentions of the parties and taking into consideration the admitted position that the suit was filed by the mother of the petitioner challenging the validity of the sale deed at the instance of the present opposite party happens to be one of her legal heir, this Court finds, there is no dispute that the petitioner is one of the legal heir. It is under the circumstance, this Court finds, there is no illegality in moving the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C at the instance of one of the legal heirs providing the party introducing such application to bring the further legal heirs to the fold of the suit. The application could have been allowed leaving it open to the person 3 applying for bringing the other legal heirs, which matter could have been considered subsequent to allowing the application under Order 22 Rule 3 of C.P.C. Taking into consideration the decision cited by the learned counsel for petitioner in the case of Smt. Gema Coutinho Rodrigues v. Bricio Francisco Pereira and others as reported in AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1199 this Court finds, the Hon'ble Apex Court in paragraph no.6 held as follows:
Orissa High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - B Rath - Full Document

Ismail (Deceased) And Ors. vs Shame Singh And Ors. on 2 November, 2001

19. I have given serious consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Lalith Mohan Mullick's case (supra) and in the case of Gema Countinho Rodrigue's case (supra) and in various judgments of this Court, I do not think that the contention raised on behalf of the defendants is sustainable and the same is liable to be rejected. It is abundantly clear from the various judgments cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs that the right to sue would survive for the simple reason that despite the fact the application of Ismail has been dismissed and Hashmat had died during the pendency of the suit, the application of Rehmat has been allowed for impleadment of his legal representatives. Once the land is in joint ownership of the plaintiff Rehmat or his legal representatives then the legal representatives would also be entitled to be the owner of every part of the land, therefore, the right to sue would survive to the legal representatives of Rehmat if none else.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mamidi Naga Damayanthi Alias Jupudi ... vs Jupudi Padmavathi Alias Mamidi ... on 3 August, 1999

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision reported in Gema Coutinho Rodrigues v. Bricio Francisa Pereira, , also pointed out that as long as one of the heirs has been brought on record, who substantially represented the estate of deceased plaintiff, the suit does not abate. In the instant case, the estate of the deceased defendant No.3 is being effectively represented by defendant No.5, who has been brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased defendant No.3. Even if defendant No.4 remains ex parte, it would not have any consequence, since there could be a decree regarding the estate of the deceased defendant No.3 and in the instant case, ultimately the suit has been decreed against deceased defendant No.3. So far as the deceased defendant No.3 is concerned, it cannot be said to be an ex parte decree. If there are several legal representatives, if some of them are not brought on record, that would not affect the merits of the decree. If that is so, defendant No.4, who is brought on record as the legal representative, for any reasons, she was not able to contest the suit, the decree passed, continues to be one OP merits against deceased defendant No.3 and it cannot be termed as an ex parte decree at all. If that so, Order 9, Rule 13 CPC would not be applicable.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - B S Raikote - Full Document
1   2 Next