Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)
Meenu Bahl vs Deen Dayal (Deceased) Through His Lrs on 10 June, 2024 cites

Kizhiakalathil Puthan Seettil ... vs Manikat Variath Ukkali Varissiar'S Son ... on 2 August, 1934

"As observed in -- '4 Lah 72', when a party to a suit dies, his legal representatives are appointed merely in order that the suit might proceed, and a decision be arrived at. It is the rights and disabilities of the original parties that have to be considered and not those of the legal representatives themselves. All that the legal representatives can, therefore, do is to take up the suit at the stage at which it was left when the original party died and to continue it. It is not open to them to assert their own individual or hostile title to the suit. It follows, therefore, that, if any defence to the suit was not open to the deceased defendant, his legal representative would not be at liberty to plead that defence. If for instance, the deceased defendant was estopped from putting forward any defence, his legal representatives, though not themselves similarly estopped, would not be at liberty to put forward that defence. That would be allowing the legal representatives to set up or agitate a new or individual right, and it is not open to them to put forward any personal defence. As held in -- 'Thavazhi Karnavan v. Sankunni', AIR 1935 Mad 52, if a legal representative wants to raise any new point which the deceased party could not have raised, he must get himself impleaded in his personal capacity, or he must challenge the decree in a ::: Downloaded on - 10/06/2024 20:30:22 :::CIS 14 separate suit.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kalloo And Anr. vs Niader Singh And Anr. on 10 January, 1929

The law has been correctly laid down in Kalloo v. Niader Singh [[1929] A.L.J. 425.]. There subsequent to a preliminary decree obtained by the defendants against the plaintiffs' father alone without impleading the plaintiffs, the father died and the plaintiffs were substituted as his legal representatives. A final decree was then passed ex parte. Later on, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully tried to have the ex parte decree set aside, raised objections to the preparation of the final decree and attacked the mortgage decree on the ground that the mortgage was without legal necessity. It was held:
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Vir Vikram Sen vs Parvati And Ors. Etc. on 13 May, 2016

In Vir Vikram Sen (supra), it has been held that lapse of some time is not a bar to file additional written statement under Order 22 Rule 4 (2) Civil Procedure Code. No prejudice will be caused to the plaintiff if an additional written statement filed by newly added defendant No. 2 is taken on record subject to payment of costs. The plaintiff will get an opportunity to rebut the additional written statement.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1