Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)
Page No.# 1/39 vs On The Death Of Satish Chandra Sarma on 21 August, 2025 cites

Beharilal & Anr vs Smt. Bhuri Devi & Ors on 5 December, 1996

In this regard, this Court finds it apposite to refer to a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Beharilal & Another Vs. Bhuri Devi (SMT) & Others reported in (1997) 2 SCC 279 wherein the issue involved was whether it was necessary to implead the Mandi Committee as a co-defendant when there was a challenge to the cancellation of the Patta against the plaintiff and land allotted in favour of the defendant. In the said proceedings, the Supreme Court while dealing with the said question, as to whether, failure to implead the Mandi Committee had rendered the suit as invalid, observed at paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 that though such a plea was raised in the written statement about non-joinder of necessary parties Page No.# 36/39 and the issue was also framed, but the Trial Court had negatived it and thereupon the same was not pursued. The effect of not pursuing was dealt with by the Supreme Court at paragraph Nos. 8 and 9 of the said judgment which being relevant are reproduced herein under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 25 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Doraiswami Goundan vs Subramania Mudaliar on 25 January, 1950

In the case of Doraiswami Goundan Vs. Subramania Mudaliar reported in AIR 1950 Mad 659, it was held that in a suit between private parties where the issues were whether Section 44-B of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act was ultra vires and whether the orders passed by the Revenue Officers were void and without jurisdiction and when no relief was asked against the Government, the Government was not a necessary party to the suit, though it was a proper party.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1