Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.24 seconds)Bishun Churn Roy Chowdhry And Ors. vs Jogendra Nath Roy And Ors. on 25 July, 1898
This may be accepted as a sound principle, but, as was pointed out by Mr. Justice Banerjee in Bishun Charan v. Jogendra Nath 26 C. 114 no exhaustive rule on the subject can be formulated, and the true test ought to be, whether, for the ends of justice, it is necessary that upon the appeal of one of the parties the matter should be re-opened only so far as he is concerned or the whole case should be reviewed and soma of the respondents allowed the opportunity to urge a cross-objection against their co-respondents. One test of a negative character is sometimes useful : if the party against whom a cross-objection is sought to be urged by his fellow-respondent, is not a necessary party to the appeal, the cross-objection can hardly be allowed to be urged. But if he is a necessary and proper party respondent to the appeal, the answer to the question whether the cross-objection should be allowed to be urged must depend upon the circumstances of the case. The test to be applied is whether the questions which arise between the several sets of parties are so connected that one of them ought not to be allowed to reopen matters, so far as he is concerned, without opportunity allowed, in the interests of justice, to another to protect himself by urging his objections, even though they be directed, not against the appellant, but against a o respondent.
Section 24 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 48 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 58 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 79 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Section 92 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Anwar Ali vs Jaffer Ali And Anr. on 5 May, 1896
3. In so far as the second ground is concerned, it raises an important question which was not suggested in the Court below. No objection appears to have been taken before the Subordinate Judge as to the competency of the cross-objection by the third and fourth defendants: that, however, does not preclude a consideration of the point by this Court : if the cross-objection was really incompetent, the omission of the plaintiff to take exception to it could not possibly validate the same. Now, it is not disputed that Order XLI, Rule 22, Sub-rule (1) of the Court of 1908, is comprehensive enough, so far as its language is concerned, to admit of a cross-objection by one respondent against another. But it has been urged that the reason of the rule requires that some limitation should be put upon its scope and application. Reference has been made to judicial decisions under the Codes of 1859 (Act VIII of 1859, Section 348) and 1882 (Act XIV of 1882, Section 561) to show that such restriction is justifiable on principle. Anwar Jan v. Azmut Ali 15 W.R. 26; Bishun Churn v. Jogendra Nath 26 C. 114; Shabiuddin v. Deomoorat Koir 30 C. 655 and Kallu v. Manni 23 A. 93. That principle is that, as a general rule, the right of any respondent to urge a cross-objection should be limited to his urging it only against the appellant : and it is only by way of exception to this general rule, that one respondent may urge a cross-objection as against another respondent: the exception, it is said, holds good in those cases where the appeal opens up questions which cannot be disposed of completely without matters being allowed to be opened up as between co-respondents.
1