Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.02 seconds)Jayarama Reddy & Anr vs Revenue Divisional Officer & Land ... on 23 March, 1979
8. On the other hand, Mr.P.B.Balaji, the learned counsel for the Respondents supported the impugned order by pointing out that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the course adopted by the court below was just and proper, especially when the decision by the Honourable Supreme Court in Jayaram Reddy Vs. The Revenue Divisional Officer (AIR-1979-SC-1393) stated that the basic principle underlying Rules 3 and 4 of Order XXII read with Rule 11 of CPC is a facet of natural justice or a limb of audi alteram partem rule and the principle that underlies these provisions is that the legal representative of a deceased who may be affected by the decision, must be afforded an opportunity of being heard before any legal liability is fastened upon him or her.
Sumtibai & Others vs Paras Finance Co. Mankanwar W/O ... on 4 October, 2007
The learned counsel for the Respondents, placing reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR-2007-SC-3166 (Sumtibai and others Vs. Paras Finance Co.) and AIR-2004-SC-3942 (Shahazada Bi and others Vs. Halimabi), contended that when the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant, prima facie, found to be co-owners of the property in dispute, they having semblance of title and are not mere busy bodies or inter polers and are entitled to file defence by way of Additional Written Statement, they should be brought on record.
Shahazada Bi & Ors vs Halimabi (Since Dead) By Her Lrs on 30 July, 2004
The learned counsel for the Respondents, placing reliance on the decisions of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in AIR-2007-SC-3166 (Sumtibai and others Vs. Paras Finance Co.) and AIR-2004-SC-3942 (Shahazada Bi and others Vs. Halimabi), contended that when the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant, prima facie, found to be co-owners of the property in dispute, they having semblance of title and are not mere busy bodies or inter polers and are entitled to file defence by way of Additional Written Statement, they should be brought on record.
Raghunandan Rai And Ors. vs Sukhlal Rai on 14 May, 1951
In Balgajan Rai Vs. Sukhu Rai (AIR-1948-Pat-288), a Division Bench has held in a similar circumstance that the Appellant cannot obviously be allowed to raise the question of fact in respect of mother being alive at the relevant time for the first time during the course of the execution proceedings and the observations of the learned judges deciding the aforesaid case was to the following effect:-
Section 144 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Harihar Prasad Singh And Ors vs Balmiki Prasad Singh And Ors on 10 December, 1974
7. A decision of a three judge bench of the Honourable Supreme Court, reiterating the similar view, in the case of Harihar Prasad Singh and others Vs. Balmiki Prasad Singh and others (AIR-1975-SC-733) was also relied upon, wherein it is held that unless there is fraud or collusion or there are other circumstances which indicate that there has not been a fair or real trial or that against the absent heir, there was a special case which was not and would not be tried in the proceedings, the heirs, who have applied for being brought on record, should be held to represent the entire estate including the interest of the heirs not brought on the record.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Rambriksh Prasad vs Shyamsunder Prasad Sahu And Ors. on 14 January, 1958
In another decision of the Patna High Court in Rambirkesh Prasad Vs. Shyamsunder Prasad Sahu (AIR-1958-Pat-467) wherein the objection raised was that the appeal had abated, because of non substitution of two daughters of the deceased and other persons had been substituted, the learned judge made note of the fact that some of the Respondents represented the estate of the deceased Defendant and the order was passed in the presence of the parties and objection had not been taken thereto. The point raised before the learned Judge was that the real heirs had not been substituted. The point was not allowed to be raised.
1