Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.52 seconds)
Rangammal vs Minor Appasami And Ors. on 4 February, 1972 cites

Bhagwan Dayal And Anr. vs Param Sukh Dass on 20 June, 1916

8. It is clear that the above irregularity will vitiate the decree if there is prejudice to the minor's interest, as was held in Sadashiv v. Trimbak, ILR 44 Bom 202 = (AIR 1920 Bom 32) and ILR 55 Cal 1241 = (AIR 1928 Cal 844), (Shaik Abdul Karim v. Thakurdas) & ILR 37 All 179 = (AIR 1915 All 62 (2)); (Bhagwan Dayal v. Param Sukh) Wallace, J. in Thirumalacharyulu v. Ammisetti Venkiah, 46 Mad LJ 363 = (AIR 1924 Mad 763)held that no irregularity by way of omission to send a notice as required under Order XXXII, Rule 3 (5) of the Civil P. C. will operate to render void the presumed representation of the minor in a suit by a guardian ad litem appointed for him, unless such an omission has in fact prejudiced his defence and that such prejudice is not a matter of assumption or presumption but of proof.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Shaik Abdul Karim vs Thakurdas Thakur And Ors. on 3 February, 1928

8. It is clear that the above irregularity will vitiate the decree if there is prejudice to the minor's interest, as was held in Sadashiv v. Trimbak, ILR 44 Bom 202 = (AIR 1920 Bom 32) and ILR 55 Cal 1241 = (AIR 1928 Cal 844), (Shaik Abdul Karim v. Thakurdas) & ILR 37 All 179 = (AIR 1915 All 62 (2)); (Bhagwan Dayal v. Param Sukh) Wallace, J. in Thirumalacharyulu v. Ammisetti Venkiah, 46 Mad LJ 363 = (AIR 1924 Mad 763)held that no irregularity by way of omission to send a notice as required under Order XXXII, Rule 3 (5) of the Civil P. C. will operate to render void the presumed representation of the minor in a suit by a guardian ad litem appointed for him, unless such an omission has in fact prejudiced his defence and that such prejudice is not a matter of assumption or presumption but of proof.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kidambi Tirumalacharyulu Alias ... vs Ammisetti Venkiah And Ors. on 6 February, 1924

8. It is clear that the above irregularity will vitiate the decree if there is prejudice to the minor's interest, as was held in Sadashiv v. Trimbak, ILR 44 Bom 202 = (AIR 1920 Bom 32) and ILR 55 Cal 1241 = (AIR 1928 Cal 844), (Shaik Abdul Karim v. Thakurdas) & ILR 37 All 179 = (AIR 1915 All 62 (2)); (Bhagwan Dayal v. Param Sukh) Wallace, J. in Thirumalacharyulu v. Ammisetti Venkiah, 46 Mad LJ 363 = (AIR 1924 Mad 763)held that no irregularity by way of omission to send a notice as required under Order XXXII, Rule 3 (5) of the Civil P. C. will operate to render void the presumed representation of the minor in a suit by a guardian ad litem appointed for him, unless such an omission has in fact prejudiced his defence and that such prejudice is not a matter of assumption or presumption but of proof.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1