Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)
Sushil Kumar vs Brij Bala (Deceased) Through Lrs on 6 April, 2026 cites

The State Of Punjab vs Nathu Ram on 1 May, 1961

In a case reported as State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram, AIR 1962 SC 89, while interpreting Order I, Rule 9 rt CPC before the addition of proviso, it has been held in paragraph 5 that if the Court can deal with the matter in controversy so far as regards the rights and interests of the appellant and the respondents other than the deceased respondent, it has to proceed with the matter, but if it is not possible for the Court to deal with the matter in the absence of a party, it has to refuse to proceed further and dismiss the matter and such eventuality will occur in the absence of necessary party. It is made clear that Rule 9 will not apply to the defect in the suit as of non-joinder of necessary parties as it cannot proceed in their absence.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 274 - R Dayal - Full Document

M/S. Aliji Momonji & Co vs Lalji Mavji & Ors on 12 July, 1996

law permits a co-owner to file a suit for possession against the tenant/unauthorized occupant without impleading the other co-owners then there cannot be any estoppel against of the law and as such the suit filed by the plaintiff without impleading the other co-owners cannot be held to be bad for rt non- joinder of necessary parties. It shall also not be out of place to mention here that the suit filed by the plaintiff against the defendant was that for possession and recovery of damages and by no stretch of imagination it can be said that without impleading the other co-owners of the suit property no effective order/adjudication can be done in the present case and even as per the test laid down in the case of Aliji Momonji (Supra) for determining as to who is the necessary party, then it can be safely held that the other co-
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 67 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

M/S. India Umbrella Manufacturing Co. & ... vs Bhagabandei Agarwalla (Dead) By ... on 5 January, 2004

and Ors. vs. Bhagabandei Agarwalla (dead) by Lrs. Savitri Agarwalla (Smt.) and Ors. (2004) 3 SCC 178 that a suit for eviction of a tenant can be maintained by one of the co-owners and it would be no defence to the tenant to question the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the other co-owners were not joined as parties to the suit. The judicially propounded proposition is that when the property forming the subject matter of eviction proceedings is owned by several co-owners, every co-owner owns every part and every bit of the joint property along with others and thus it cannot be said that he is only a part owner or a fractional owner of the property and that he can alone maintain a suit for eviction of the tenant without joining ::: Downloaded on - 06/04/2026 20:34:23 :::CIS 17 ( 2026:HHC:10247 ) the other co-owners if such other co-owners do not object. In the contextual facts, not only the compromise decree, as aforementioned, has declared the appellants to be the joint owners of the suit premises, their status as such has not been questioned at any .
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 321 - R C Lahoti - Full Document

S. Thangappan vs P. Padmavathy on 24 August, 1999

34. "That a tenant during the continuance of the tenancy is debarred on the doctrine of estoppel from denying the title of his landlord through whom he claims tenancy, as is enshrined in Section 116 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, is so well- settled a legal postulation that no decision need be cited to further consolidate the same. This enunciation, amongst of others is reiterated by this Court in S. Thangappan vs. P. Padmavathu (1999) 7 SCC 474 and Bhogadi Kannababu and Ors. vs. Vuggina Pydamma and Others (2006) 5 SCC 53. In any view of the matter, the rt appellants, being the son of Bhola Nath, who at all relevant time, was the landlord vis-a-vis the original defendant and the respondents in terms of Section 3(j) of the Act, their status as landlords for the purpose of eviction under the Act, could not have been questioned so as to non- suit them for want of locus."
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 127 - Full Document
1   2 Next