Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)
Neelakantha Pillai Ramachandran Nair vs Ayyappan Pillai Kumara Pillai on 8 August, 1977 cites

Baman Chandra Acharya And Ors. vs Balaram Acharya And Ors. on 30 July, 1965

In support of his contention that the court below had no jurisdiction to order the impleadment of additional parties subsequent to the passing of a preliminary decree, the learned advocate for the revision petitioner strongly relied on the decision of a learned Single Judge on the Orissa High Court reported in Baman Chandra v. Balaram (AIR 1966 Ori 160) and also a ruling of our learned brother Narendran.
Orissa High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Syed Mohiddin (Died) And Anr. vs Abdul Rahim And Ors. on 29 August, 1963

In the last mentioned case ((1970) 1 Mad LJ 243) it is observed by Sadasivan J. that the proceedings in a suit for partition cannot come to an end till the final decree is passed and that the court has jurisdiction at any stage before the passing of a final decree to order impleadment of any person as an additional party in case it is satisfied that such person ought to have been joined as a party to the suit or that his presence before the court may be necessary to enable the court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon all the questions arising therein, A Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court has taken the same view in R. A. Nara-singa Rao v. Chunduru Sarada (AIR 1978 Andh Pra 226) approving an earlier ruling of a Single Judge of that Court reported in Syed Mohiddin v. Abdul Rahim (AIR 1964 Andh Pra 260).
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Venkata Reddi And Others vs Pothi Reddi on 30 November, 1962

5. We do not, therefore, find it possible to agree wholly with the principle laid down in either of the two sets of rulings cited before us. as, in our opinion, it would not be right either to completely rule out the addition of parties after the passing of a preliminary decree or to recognise an unrestricted power to allow the impleadment of additional parties even after the preliminary decree so as to rip open matters already decided and settled by the preliminary decree. As we have already indicated the correct view seems to us to be that the power of the court to implead additional parties at a stage subsequent to the passing of a preliminary decree in an action for partition or redemption must be limited to cases where such impleadment of additional parties would not involve the ripping open of any of the matters already dealt with in the preliminary decree and the case can be proceeded with the additional parties on record on the basis of the determination already given in the preliminary decree.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 16 - J R Mudholkar - Full Document
1