Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.35 seconds)
Ponniammal vs Ramalingam on 10 February, 2014 cites

Dwarka Prasad Singh & Others vs Harikant Prasad Singh & Others on 29 November, 1972

"According to that rule the abatement of an appeal means not only that the decree between the appellant and the deceased respondent becomes final but also, as a necessary corollary, the appellate court cannot in any way modify that decree directly or indirectly. The decision in Nathu Ram case, was referred to in Pandit Siri Chand v. Jagdish Parshad Kishin Chand where the decision was somewhat similar to Rameshwar Prasad case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 67 - A N Grover - Full Document

The State Of Punjab vs Nathu Ram on 1 May, 1961

It was also emphasised that in a situation where two inconsistent orders or decrees would result the rule in Nathu Ram case, would be applicable. It may be mentioned that in that case an award had been made for payment of compensation in favour of two brothers L & N. The State appealed against the award to the High Court. During the pendency of the appeal Respondent L died and no application was made; for bringing on record his legal representatives within the requisite period of limitation. The question was that since the appeal had abated against L what was its effect in appeal against N. It was observed that the consideration which would weight with the court in deciding whether the entire appeal had abated or not would be whether the appeal between the appellants and the respondents other than the deceased respondent could be said to be properly constituted or could be said to have all the necessary parties for the decision of the controversy before the court. Another main test was whether the success of the appeal would lead to a decision which would be in conflict with the decision between the appellant and the deceased respondent. Thus the court will have to pass a decree contradictory to the one which had already become final with respect to the same subject-matter between the appellant and the deceased respondent. It is arguable that the present case is distinguishable from the decisions in Rameshwar Prasad and Pt. Siri Chand. Here the appellate court could, under Order 41, Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code reverse the decree for specific performance since the defendants second party, filed the appeal and Guha, the vendor, who died had not joined in the appeal. The decree for specific performance proceeded on a ground common to both sets of defendants. It could, therefore, be set aside in terms of the above provision. But there is a joint decree in favour of both sets of defendants for the receipt of Rs 77,000. If the decree for specific performance is set aside that part of the decree will also have to go. It is not possible to understand how that can be done in the absence of the legal representatives of the deceased, Guha. Moreover, the plaintiffs had claimed against Guha, in the alternative, a decree for substantial amount consisting of the part consideration paid and certain other amounts. If Guha had been alive or if his legal representatives had been impleaded in time the court could, while setting aside the decree for specific performance, grant the alternative prayer which was only made against Guha. This cannot be done now. In these circumstances we are of the view that Order 41 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be of any avail to the appellants. The abatement of the appeal, so far as Guha was concerned, will prove fatal to the entire appeal as either inconsistent and contradictory decrees will have to be passed or proper reliefs cannot be granted in the absence of a necessary party against that party or his legal representatives."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 274 - R Dayal - Full Document

Pandit Sri Chand And Ors vs M/S. Jagdish Parshad Kishan Chand on 4 February, 1966

"According to that rule the abatement of an appeal means not only that the decree between the appellant and the deceased respondent becomes final but also, as a necessary corollary, the appellate court cannot in any way modify that decree directly or indirectly. The decision in Nathu Ram case, was referred to in Pandit Siri Chand v. Jagdish Parshad Kishin Chand where the decision was somewhat similar to Rameshwar Prasad case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 54 - J C Shah - Full Document
1