Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.50 seconds)
Mustafa Khan S/O Ibrahim Khan Pathan vs Mst. Jainabbi W/O M.A. Hafiz And Ors. on 8 August, 1994
cites
Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
17. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that in. the compromise decree even the share of the applicant has been incorporated. Similarly, though the suit is for declaration, restraining non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession, the suit and the causes cannot be split up by entering into a-compromise between some of the plaintiffs and the defendants. There is no dispute that the compromise is beyond the pleadings and the issues framed in the suit. The applicant is not a party to the compromise petition. On the contrary, he has raised objection to the compromise. Considering the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the provisions of Rules 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra State Lok Nyayalaya Rules 1986, and various pronouncements, discussed above, the decree itself being ultra vires and, therefore, void and a nullity, the applicant has a right under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to raise an objection or challenge the decree before the Executing Court, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kiran. Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Govind Ram Bohra (cited supra).
Patel Chaturbhai Nanabhai vs Patel Mohanbhai Nanabhai And Anr. on 14 December, 1971
16. The principles laid down in the case of Patel Chaturbhai Nanabhai v. Patel Mohanbhai Nanabhai (cited supra) are in toto applicable to the instant case. The learned Trial Court passed the decree incorporating the portion of the property of the applicant which was not claimed at all by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3, which means the compromise is plainly outside the suit i.e. outside the pleadings of the defendants. Thus, injustice is apparently caused to the applicant. The trial Court in fact had no jurisdiction to record the compromise in respect of the property belonging to the applicant. Thus, the decree is ultra vires and, therefore, void and a nullity. The applicant, therefore, rightly raised the objection under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure before the Executing Court.
Section 13 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Sushil Kumar Metha vs Gobind Ram Bohra on 10 November, 1989
17. It is apparent from the facts and circumstances of the case that in. the compromise decree even the share of the applicant has been incorporated. Similarly, though the suit is for declaration, restraining non-applicants Nos. 1 to 3 from disturbing the plaintiffs' possession, the suit and the causes cannot be split up by entering into a-compromise between some of the plaintiffs and the defendants. There is no dispute that the compromise is beyond the pleadings and the issues framed in the suit. The applicant is not a party to the compromise petition. On the contrary, he has raised objection to the compromise. Considering the provisions of Order XXIII, Rule 3, of the Code of Civil Procedure, and the provisions of Rules 53 and 54 of the Maharashtra State Lok Nyayalaya Rules 1986, and various pronouncements, discussed above, the decree itself being ultra vires and, therefore, void and a nullity, the applicant has a right under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure to raise an objection or challenge the decree before the Executing Court, as observed by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the cases of Kiran. Singh v. Chaman Paswan and Sushil Kumar Mehta v. Govind Ram Bohra (cited supra).
Kaushalya Devi & Ors vs Shri K.L. Bansal on 3 December, 1968
Reliance has been placed on the case of Smt. Kaushalya Devi and Ors. v. K L. Bansai . In para 5, Their Lordships observed as follows:
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954
12. Shri Modak, the learned Counsel for the applicant, submitted that the decree impugned is a nullity as the trial Court has committed an error in passing the decree, determining an issue not arising out of the pleadings of the parties. Admittedly, defendants Nos. 1 to 3 did not claim ownership and as such they were not entitled to a decree. In spite of this, by passing a decree on the basis of the compromise the land from the suit fields has been given to defendants Nos. 1 to 3. ft means, the decree is beyond the pleadings. Reliance has been placed on the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanastus and Ors. AIR 1954 SC 526. Placitum (k). There Lordships observed-
Rani Bai vs Shri Yadunandan Ram & Anr on 19 February, 1969
In view of the observations made by Their Lordships in the case of Smt. Rani Bai v. Yadimandan Ram (cited supra), no decree can be passed in respect of the land which belongs to the adult party.