Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 32 (0.37 seconds)Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885
Section 26C in Bengal Tenancy Act, 1885 [Entire Act]
The State Of Punjab vs Nathu Ram on 1 May, 1961
In conclusion I must point out that if a plain
tiff respondent in whose favour the decree was passed
dies, the appeal abates so far as he is concerned on the omission to implead his legal representative within the time allowed by law and if he was a necessary party to the appeal, the entire appeal becomes incompetent and cannot be proceeded with, see State of Punjab v. Nathu Ram , Kali Dayal v. Nagendra Nath, 24 Cal WN 44 : (AIR 1920 Cal 264), Bishnu Bijoy v. Chandra bijoy, (S) and other cases. Order 41, Rule 4 C. P. C. is not attracted to such a case.
Kali Dayal Bhattacharjee And Ors. vs Nagendra Nath Pakrashi And Ors. on 28 July, 1919
The said view, 1 must admit with regret, does not commend
to me. Following the said decision in Kali Dayal's case,
24 Cal WN 44: (AIR 1920 Cal 264) and the decision or
Maclean C. J. and Pratt J. in the Letters Patent Appeal of
Protap Chandra v. Durga Charan, 9 Cal WN 1061, which
was a decision under the old Code containing no reasons
whatsoever, Cuming and Mallik JJ. decided in , that in such circumstances the whole appeal would abate and Order 41 Rule 4 gives no power to the Court to vary or reverse the decree in favour of the deceased party. It is difficult for me to follow the above view.
Gopesh Chandra Aditya vs Benode Lal Das And Ors. on 24 January, 1936
There is a conflict of decision, but the view of the Calcutta High Court (Gopesh Chandra v. Benode Lal and Fazal Rahaman v. Abdul Rashid 43 Cal WN 15 is that even if B has not been impleaded as a party, the court can still grant relief.
R.M.M.S.T. Somasundaram Chettiar ... vs Vaithilinga Mudaliar And Ors. on 15 November, 1916
"The Code of Civil Procedure makes no exception to this general rule so far as suits are concerned. The position is, however, different in an appeal. Order 41, Rule 4, creates an exception to this general rule .......... the Appellate Court, therefore has the power to pass a decree In favour of a person who is not before it in the circumstances stated in the Rule. In the present case the decree in the Court below has proceeded on a ground common to all the plaintiff-tenants. Although Order 41, Rule 4 does not in terms apply to the present set of circumstances inasmuch as the deceased plaintiff had in fact appealed and had died pending the appeal, nevertheless, I think, that as the Appellate Court has the power to reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs, including a plaintiff who has not been made a party to the appeal, it can exercise the same power in favour of the heirs of a plaintiff who was an Appellant and who had died pending the appeal, although such heirs have not been made parties to the appeal. The position is essentially the same as if that deceased plaintiff had not appealed at all. The cases of and the case of Somasundaram Chettier v. Vaithilinga Mudaliar, ILR 40 Mad 846 : (AIR 1918 Mad 794(2)) support the view taken by me, but a different view seems to have been taken in the case of and . In the circumstances I respectfully follow the decision first cited and hold that the appeal has not abated as a whole."
Ambika Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Thakur Prasad Singh And Ors. on 8 April, 1958
35. Besides the above, the decision in AIR 1924 Rang 376, Sankru Mahto v. Bhoju Mahato, AIR 1936 Pat 548 : ILR 15 Pat 326; (S) (FB) and Ambika Prasad Singh v. Thakur Prasad Singh , though not directly on the point or points, here at issue, or, not strictly, deciding the same, throw considerable light and offer sufficient help in the solution of the above conflict.
Naimuddin Biswas And Ors. vs Maniruddin Lashkar And Ors. on 10 May, 1927
In the
case of AIR 1919 Cal 410 (supra), Newbould and Duval JJ. could not accept the contention that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 4 could operate in favour of the surviving plaintiffs and held that a decree passed in ignorance of the death of one of the joint plaintiffs is to render the Judgment and decree a nullity. 1 fail to appreciate the reasons
therein arid I respectfully beg to differ with the views or
their Lordships.
Sree Sreejut Maharaja Sir Bir Bikram ... vs Tafazzal Hossain And Ors. on 13 July, 1942
In the facts of the case of Bikram Kishore v. Tafazzal Hossain decided by Mitter and M.C. Ghosh JJ. cited at the bar, there was no question of abatement of the suit or the appeal upon the death of any of the parties thereto.