Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Rani Dhandei Kuer vs Fatma Zuhra And Ors. on 11 August, 1939

Raja Himanshudhar Singh vs Ram Hitkari And Ors. on 29 March, 1963

In Rani Dhandei Kuer v. Fatma Zuhra, AIR 1939 All 698, Thom, C. J. and Ganga Nath, J. decided that when an appeal arising out of a suit for injunction arid damages abates against B it cannot proceed against A and must be dismissed as incompetent. The learned Judges did not refer to the cases of Shibban, AIR 1934 All 716 and Ram Dei, AIR 1930 All 762. There A and B were alleged to have done the act jointly, which is not the case in the instant appeal. The learned Judges said that even if the plaintiff could compel A to close down the market he could not compel B's legal representatives to do so and that if he got a decree against A it would not be capable of being executed. With great respect to the learned Judges I do not see any difficulty in the plaintiff's compelling A to close down the market even if B's legal representatives are left free to run it. It is not impossible for A to refrain from doing the act even if B is left free to do it and, if the plaintiff has a right to require A to desist from doing the act, there is no reason why the Court should not give him a decree for injunction against A, even it the same act can be done by B's legal representatives. It is not easy to understand what the learned Judges meant by saying that the appeal against A was "imperfect"; the Civil Procedure Code does not explain what is an "imperfect" appeal and how it stands in the eye of law.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Ram Gopal Son Of Sri Sukhdeo And Ors. vs Bhuluwa Son Of Kaira, Smt. Ram Deiya Wife ... on 10 February, 2006

95 followed by Rani Dhan Dei Kuer v. Fatima Zuhra AIR 1939 All 698, Baijnath v. Ram Bharose ; Rameshwar Pd. v. Shyam Behari Lal AIR I960 All 741, Anwar Khan v. Dy Director of Consolidation of this Court, and State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram ; Ram Swamp v. Munshi and Dwarka Prasad v. Hari Kanta Prasad of the Supreme Court which laid down the principle that in case the right and interest of the surviving appellants or respondents with the deceased appellant or respondent, as the case may be. Whose legal representatives have not been brought on the record, are joint and indivisible, the appeal cannot be heard at the instance of the surviving appellants or against the surviving respondents.
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anwar Khan vs The Deputy Director Of Consolidation ... on 19 September, 1972

6. Similar view was expressed In the case of Rani Dhandei Kuer v. Fatma Zuhra, (AIR 1939 All 698). The copy of the order passed by the Deputy Director of Consolidation (Annexure 3) shows that a finding was recorded to the effect that no rights accrued in favour of Imamuddin Khan, father of the petitioner on the basis of his possession in 1359 Fasli. because he had migrated to Pakistan. Whether this finding is right or wrong is immaterial. The fact remains that this finding of the Deputy Director has become final between the petitioner and the legal representatives of Khadim Haider. If the petitioner's contention is accepted and the writ petition is heard against the remaining respondents who are on record and a finding is reached that imamuddin Khan had acquired sirdari rights over the disputed land under Section 3 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952 (U. P. Act XXXI of 1952) on the basis of petitioner's father being recorded in possession in the Khasra for 1359 Fasli then such a decision in the writ petition would be clearly inconsistent with the decision of the Deputy Director of Consolidation so far as the legal representatives of Khadim Haider are concerned. In other words, it will lead two two contradictory decrees. The petitioner has not taken the ground of adverse possession in the writ petition. Even If he had taken the plea of adverse possession it is clear that such a plea, If It would have succeeded against the remaining respondents, would lead to finding inconsistent with the one which was recorded by the Deputy Director and is now final between the petitioner and Khadim Haider.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Radhey Shyam And Anr. vs Ram Dhan Lal And Anr. on 8 September, 1942

22. We have not the slightest doubt that the zamindars of these villages have in the past always regulated their conduct in accordance with the position which is contended for by the appellants and that the dispute raised by the plaintiffs on the present occasion was in defiance of what has always been the rule and was not honest. Lastly, it was suggested on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents that, if the present appeal is allowed, conflicting decrees would come into existence as only four of the cosharers of Jhawa Nagla had appealed and the rest had acquiesced in the decree of the Court below, and Dhandei Kuar v. Fatma Zohra ('39) 26 A.I.R. 1939 All. 698. has been cited. The facts of that case are wholly different and the decision is not at all applicable to the case before us. It is not denied that the various groups of cosharers owned separate and independent shares. The appellants apparently belong to one family and have nothing to do with the remaining cosharers of Jhawa Nagla, who belong to different castes, and the relief sought by the appeal, as already stated, is that the decree of the Court below may be set aside and the suit of the plaintiffs be dismissed "as against the appellants." There is no question of conflicting decrees coming into existence in this case. The result is that we allow the appeal and set aside the decree of the Court below so far as it is against the appellants. The suit shall stand dismissed as against the appellants who shall have their costs in both Courts.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1