Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.49 seconds)Mannem Venkataramayya vs M. Munnemma And Ors. on 13 September, 1962
Once the name of
Mrs. Nalini Bai was brought on record within time and the
application for setting aside abatement was allowed by the
trial Judge, the suit could proceed on merits and the mere
fact that the remaining legal representatives were brought
on record at a subsequent stage could not render the suit
defective. The Custodian of the appellant Bank had no knowl-
edge that there were other legal representatives of deceased
defendant along with Mrs. Nalini Bai. He had filed affidavit
that on making diligent and bona fide inquiry, he had come
to know that Nalini Bai was the sole legal representative
but later on he acquired knowledge that the deceased had
left four sons and two daughters as legal representatives,
along with Mrs. Nalini Bai, therefore, he made another
application for bringing them on record. The trial Judge
accepted the testimony of the Custodian, and placing reli-
ance on the decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Mannem
Venkataramaih v. M. Munnemma & Ors., AIR 1963 A.P. 406 he
allowed the substitution application. The trial court com-
mitted no error in law, instead he applied correct princi-
ples of law.
Daya Ram And Others vs Shyam Sundari on 8 September, 1964
In Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari, [1965] 1 SCR 231
this Court recognised the principle of representation of the
estate by some heirs, where the defendant died during the
pendency of the suit to enforce claim against him and all
the heirs are not brought on record within time. This Court
held that if after bona fide inquiry, some, but not all the
heirs, of a deceased defendant, are brought on record the
heirs so brought on record represent the entire estate of
the deceased and the decision of the Court in the absence of
fraud or collusion binds even those who are not brought on
record as well as those who are impleaded as legal represen-
tatives of the deceased defendant.
N.K. Mohammad Sulaiman vs N. C. Mohammad Ismail And Others on 23 September, 1965
In N.K. Mohd. Sulaiman v.
N.C. Mohd. Ismail, [1966] 1 SCR 937 this Court
816
rejected the contention that in a suit to enforce a mortgage
instituted after the death of a Muslim, if all the heirs of
the deceased were not impleaded in the suit and a decree was
obtained, and in execution the property was sold, the auc-
tion purchaser could have title only to the extent of the
interest of the heirs who were impleaded, and he could have
no title to the interest of those heirs who had not been
impleaded to the suit. The Court held, that those who were
impleaded as party to the suit in place of the deceased
defendant represented the entire estate as they had share in
the property and since they had been brought on record the
decree was binding on the entire estate
In the instant case Mrs. Nalini Bai had admittedly hall
share in the property left by the deceased defendant and as
she was brought on record within time, she represented the
estate of the deceased defendant and the suit could proceed
on merit. In this view the impleadment of other legal repre-
sentatives at a subsequent stage could not affect validity
of the proceedings. In the result we allow the appeal and
set aside the judgment and order of the Judicial Commission-
er dated 30.6.1972, and restore the order of the trial
Judge. Since trial of the suit has been delayed, we direct
the trial court to make every effort to decide the suit
expeditiously. The appellant is entitled to its costs
throughout.
Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1