Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (1.80 seconds)Johan Uraon (Ekka) And Anr. vs Sitaram Sao (Bhagat) And Ors. on 14 February, 1963
In the case of Johan Uraon (Ekka) and Anr v. Sitaram Sao, , a Division Bench of Patna High Court held that a- suit by one of the joint owners to obtain possession by ejecting a trespasser was maintainable even through the other joint owners are not impleaded as parties to the action. It was thus held that when one of the plaintiffs who are joint owners dies, the right to suit in fact survives to the other plaintiffs or the other appellants or respondents as the case may be and in such a case, there is no question of abatement of the entire appeal. This applies with greater force in the case of a suit for perpetual injunction.
The State Of Andhra Pradesh Represented ... vs Mohd. Khutubuddin Khan And Anr. on 18 December, 1962
20. The learned counsel for the petitioners relies on another Division Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of State of Hyderabad v. Mohammad Ajzal, . In this case, the matter related to land acquisition. The subject matter of land was held by several persons as joint owners. One of the joint owners was not made a party to the proceedings. Under these circumstances, it was held that one of the joint owners not being made a party or not being a party by reason of any abatement or ceasing to be a party due to death, the amount of compensation awarded would be considered to be different to that which would have been given had all the parties owning the land been before the Court. It was thus held that in the absence of any one of them, the appeal itself would not be properly framed. On this basis, it was held that the appeal as a whole abated.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Sahdeo Singh And Ors. vs Ramchhabila Singh And Ors. on 15 February, 1978
In the case of Sahdeo Singh v. Ramchhabila Singh, , the Patna High Court has held that where during the pendency of a suit by co-owners for declaration of title and possession against the trespassers, one of the co-owners died, the suit will not abate for non-substitution of the legal representatives for the reason that the suit is maintainable even by some of the co-owners. This case applies on all fours to the facts of this case.
1