Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.52 seconds)Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass vs Som Dass (Deceased) Through His Chela ... on 28 August, 1975
In the case of Rikhu Dev, Chela Bawa Harjug Dass v. Som
Dass (deceased) through his Chela Shiama Dass, AIR 1975
Supreme Court 2159, while considering the effect of devolution of
interest within the meaning of Order 22 Rule 10 of the Code, on the
trial of a suit during its pendency, this Court has laid down the law at
page 2160 which runs thus:-
Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
In the case of Kiran Singh and others v. Chaman Paswan
and others AIR 1954 S.C.340, question was raised, when decree
passed by a Court is nullity and whether execution of such a decree
can be resisted at the execution stage which would obviously mean
by taking an objection under Section 47 of the Code. Venkatarama
Ayyar, J. speaking for himself and on behalf of B.K.Mukherjea, Vivian
Bose, Ghulam Hasan, JJ., observed at page 352 thus:
Ittavira Mathai vs Varkey Varkey And Another on 15 January, 1963
In the case of Ittyavira Mathai v. Varkey Varkey and another
AIR 1964 S.C.907, the question which fell for consideration before
this Court was if a Court, having jurisdiction over the parties to the
suit and subject matter thereof passes a decree in a suit which was
barred by time, such a decree would come within the realm of nullity
and the Court answered the question in the negative holding that
such a decree cannot be treated to be nullity but at the highest be
treated to be an illegal decree. While laying down the law, the Court
stated at page 910 thus:-
Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi vs Rajabhai Abdul Rehman & Ors on 18 March, 1970
Again, in the case of Vasudev Dhanjibhai Modi v. Rajabhai
Abdul Rehman and others AIR 1970 S.C.1475, the Court was
considering scope of objection under Section 47 of the Code in
relation to the executability of a decree and it was laid down that only
such a decree can be subject matter of objection which is nullity and
not a decree which is erroneous either in law or on facts. J.C.Shah,
J. speaking for himself and on behalf of K.S.Hegde and A.N.Grover,
JJ., laid down the law at pages 1476-77 which runs thus:-
A Court executing a decree cannot go behind the decree
between the parties or their representatives; it must take
the decree according to its tenor, and cannot entertain
any objection that the decree was incorrect in law or on
facts. Until it is set aside by an appropriate proceeding in
appeal or revision, a decree even if it be erroneous is still
binding between the parties.
Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd vs State Of Bihar & Ors on 29 September, 1977
In the case of Everest Coal Company (P) Ltd. v. State of
Bihar and others, (1978) 1 SCC 12, this Court held that leave for
suing the receiver can be granted even after filing of the suit and held
that the infirmity of not obtaining the leave does not bear upon the
jurisdiction of the trial court or the cause of action but it is peripheral.
It also held that if a suit prosecuted without such leave culminates in
a decree, the same is liable to be set aside. These observations do
not mean that the decree is nullity. On the other hand, the
observation of the Court at page 15 that any litigative disturbance of
the Courts possession without its permission amounts to contempt of
its authority; and the wages of contempt of Court in this jurisdiction
may well be voidability of the whole proceeding would lend support
to the view and such decree is voidable but not void.
Haji Sk. Subhan vs Madhorao on 16 October, 1961
In the case of Haji Sk.Subhan v. Madhorao, AIR 1962
S.C.1230, the question which fell for consideration of this Court was
as to whether an executing Court can refuse to execute a decree on
the ground that the same has become inexecutable on account of the
change in law in Madhya Pradesh by promulgation of M.P.Abolition of
Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 and
a decree was passed in ignorance of the same. While answering the
question in the affirmative, the Court observed at page 1287 thus:-
Vidya Sagar vs Sudesh Kumari & Others on 8 October, 1975
In the case of Vidya Sagar v. Smt. Sudesh Kumari and
others, AIR 1975 S.C.2295, an objection was taken under Section 47
of the Code to the effect that decree passed was incapable of
execution after passing of U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms
Act, 1950 and the objection was allowed by the High Court and when
the matter was brought to this Court, the order was upheld holding
that decree was incapable of execution by subsequent promulgation
of legislation by State Legislature.