Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)Mahindra Singh And Ors. vs Chander Singh And Ors. on 23 January, 1956
In Mahindra Singh's case, the learned Single Judge of the
Patna High Court has held, by referring to common law, that "the
plaintiff's suit is primarily to establish his personal right to an office
which would entitle him to possession of the property in question, on his
19/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.1702 & 1703 of 2017
death, either during the pendency of the suit or during the pendency of the
appeal, the right to sue would not survive, and the suit will, therefore,
abate. Likewise, where the plaintiff's suit is of a personal character, in
which the rights claimed by him are Intimately connected with his
individuality, on his death, the right to sue would not survive, and the suit
will therefore, abate." I do not find even this decision coming to the rescue
of the decision.
Smt. Ambalika Padhi And Another vs Sh. Radhakrishna Padhi And Others, on 6 December, 1991
In Ambalika Padhi's case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that when the substituted and transposed plaintiffs were claiming under the
original plaintiff and continuing the suit, it cannot be said that their cause
of action is different from the cause of action of the original plaintiff,
merely because, they are claiming to be legal representatives under
settlement under Will. Therefore, the ratio laid down by the petitioners, it
actually detrimental to the case of the revision petitioners.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
V.O.Duraisamy Mudaliar [Deceased vs Parijathammal (Died) on 4 January, 2016
Insofar as the decisions
relied on by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners, in the case of
V.O.Duraisamy Mudaliar's case, it is the case, where the suit was one for
injunction and the subsequent purchaser wanted to implead himself and
therefore, this Court held that the cause of action was not available to the
subsequent purchaser, to continue the suit. In fact, in para - 8 of the said
order, this Court held "Further, if the suit is for declaration of title for the
entire 4 items of the suit property, the respondent herein can step into the
shoes of the deceased party as her valuable right is involved and hence,
18/21
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.R.P.(MD).Nos.1702 & 1703 of 2017
her impleadment is necessary and mandatory. But in the instant case, the
suit is only for bare injunction and the respondent/proposed party has
purchased the first item of the suit scheduled property only after the filing
of the suit". So, the contention raised by the learned counsel for the
revision petitioners that the "there is no cause of action to adjudicate" is
not acceptable.
1