Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Chittirala Mahalakshmamma vs Senisetti Hanumayya And Anr. on 13 February, 1953 cites

Abdul Sac Alias Varusai Mohammad Sahib vs Sundara Mudaliar And Anr. on 24 April, 1930

This view was negatived by a Full Bench decision in -- 'Abdul Sac v. Sundara 'Mudaliar', AIR 1930 Mad 817 (B), which followed the earlier view taken in -- 'Krishnappa v. Periasami', AIR 1918 Mad 911 (C), by Ayling and Kumaraswami Sastriar JJ. The learned subordinate Judge considered the decision in -- 'AIR 1930 Mad 817 (B)', but took the view that it did not apply to the facts of the present case, as there it was a case of a party claiming a title paramount in a mortgage suit. The learned Subordinate Judge failed to observe that this was a case where the appellant claimed a paramount title to this property as against the deceased executant of the pronote in which the decree-holder obtained his decree. The Full Bench decision is clearly in point and governs the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Jujishti Panda vs Lakshmana Dola Behara And Ors. on 19 January, 1933

The view taken there was also followed in -- 'Jujisti Panda v. Lakshmana', AIR 1833 Mad 435 (D) and -- "Thanagachami v. Veerappa', AIR 1937 Mad 268 (E). In -- 'AIR 1933 Mad 435 (D), Beasley C. J. who also delivered the judgment of the Full Bench in -- 'AIR 1930 Mad 817 (B)', expressed the view that on the exoneration or the striking out of the names of persons on the ground of misjoinder, they cease to be parties to the suit and that such defendants must be treated as persons who had been dismissed from the suit and not as person against whom the suit had been dismissed. This view was also followed in -- 'AIR 1937 Mad 268 (E)', in which it was held that a defendant who was not a necessary party would not be a party to the suit within the meaning of Section 47, if he is exonerated without his claim being adjudicated upon. There can be no doubt following this line of decisions that this is a case which is not governed by Section 47, Civil P. C. but by Order 21, Rule 58.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Krishnappa Mudali vs Periasami Mudali on 21 December, 1916

This view was negatived by a Full Bench decision in -- 'Abdul Sac v. Sundara 'Mudaliar', AIR 1930 Mad 817 (B), which followed the earlier view taken in -- 'Krishnappa v. Periasami', AIR 1918 Mad 911 (C), by Ayling and Kumaraswami Sastriar JJ. The learned subordinate Judge considered the decision in -- 'AIR 1930 Mad 817 (B)', but took the view that it did not apply to the facts of the present case, as there it was a case of a party claiming a title paramount in a mortgage suit. The learned Subordinate Judge failed to observe that this was a case where the appellant claimed a paramount title to this property as against the deceased executant of the pronote in which the decree-holder obtained his decree. The Full Bench decision is clearly in point and governs the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sethu Konar vs Ramaswami Konar on 7 September, 1925

3. I have no doubt that the view taken by the learned District Munsif is correct. There were two views taken in decisions of this Court as regards the application of the explanation to Section 47, Civil P. C. according to which, for the purpose of that section, a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed and a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed are parties to the suit. The earlier narrow view taken in -- 'Sethu Konar v. Ramaswami Konar', AIR 1926 Mad 484 (A), was that the ground on which a party is exonerated from the suit can never determine whether he continues or ceases to be a party, but it will depend entirely upon whether his name has been struck off from or retained on the record.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1