Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 22 (2.10 seconds)Section 18 in The Land Acquisition Act, 1894 [Entire Act]
State Of Rajasthan And Ors. vs Raghuraj Singh on 2 November, 1966
Mr. Sen has placed reliance on Punjab State v. Sardar
Atma Singh(5) and State of Rajasthan and others v. Raghuraj
Singh(6) to show that where an application is not made to
bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on
the record of a cross-appeal, that appeal will abate, and it
will not be permissible for the appellant to claim the
benefit of the fact that the legal representative of the
deceased respondent had been brought on the record in the
cross-appeal filed by him. I have gone through the cases,
but they are clearly distinguishable. The respondent in both
cases died during the pendency of the firs appeal, and an
objection as to abatement was taken during the course of the
hearing, so that there was no question of abandoning the
objection in either of these cases and it was permissible to
apply to the court for the usual consequences which follow
for non-compliance with the provisions of order XXII rules 3
and 4 C.P.C. Those decisions cannot therefore be of any help
in a case like this.
Harihar Prasad Singh And Ors vs Balmiki Prasad Singh And Ors on 10 December, 1974
If this is the discernible principle underlying order
22, rules 3 and 4 it has been demonstrably established by
interpretation put on these two rules. Original view was
that all legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or
defendant must be substituted on the pain of the action
abating. With utmost diligence from a multitude some one may
escape notice and the consequent hardship in abatement of
action led this Court to assert the principle that where
some legal representatives are brought on record permitting
an inference that the estate is adequately represented, the
action would not abate though it would be the duty of the
other side to bring those legal representatives on record
who are overlooked or missed even at a later date. When the
aforementioned two provisions speak of legal representatives
it only means that if after diligent and bona fide enquiry
the party liable to bring the legal representatives on
record ascertains who are the legal representatives of a
deceased party and brings them on record within the time
limited by law, there is no abatement of the suit or appeal
on the ground that some other legal representatives have not
been brought on record, because the impleaded legal
representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the
deceased and the decision would bind not only those
impleaded but the entire estate including the interest of
those not brought on record. This view has been consistently
adopted by this Court in Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari
(1) N. K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N. C. Mohammad Ismail &
Ors.;(2) and Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad
Singh & Ors.(3) The principle deducible from these decisions
is that not only the interest of the deceased was adequately
taken care of by those who were on record but they had the
opportunity to put forth their case within permissible
limits. Neither the case of the deceased nor of his
successors in-interest has gone by default. In other words,
the principle is that if thd deceased had as a party a right
to put forth his case, those likely to be affected by the
decision on death of the deceased had the same opportunity
to put forth their case and even if from a large number
having identical interest some are not brought on record
those who are brought on record would adequately take care
of their interest and the cause in the absence of some such
would not abate. In legal parlance this procedure affords an
opportunity of being heard in all its ramification before a
decision on the pending list is taken.
The State Of Punjab vs Nathu Ram on 1 May, 1961
There were cross appeals arising from the same Award
before the High Court. The record does not show that any
order was made for
613
consolidating these appeals as is usually done when both the
parties to a decree prefer appeals and which are styled as
cross-appeals. Both the parties to the original proceeding
adopt rival positions in cross appeals. The claimants in
their appeal moved the High Court to enhance the
compensation from Rs. 12/- per sq. yd. awarded by the
Subordinate Judge to a higher amount as claimed by them. The
Government in its appeal against the same Award moved the
High Court to reduce the compensation from Rs. 12/- to Rs.
2/- per sq. yd. The contest between the parties would be,
what in the circumstances of the case should be adequate
compensation being the market value of the land acquired by
the Government on the relevant date (see Nathuram's case).
Punjab State vs Sardar Atma Singh S/O S. Nagina Singh on 24 May, 1962
Mr. Sen has placed reliance on Punjab State v. Sardar
Atma Singh(5) and State of Rajasthan and others v. Raghuraj
Singh(6) to show that where an application is not made to
bring the legal representative of the deceased respondent on
the record of a cross-appeal, that appeal will abate, and it
will not be permissible for the appellant to claim the
benefit of the fact that the legal representative of the
deceased respondent had been brought on the record in the
cross-appeal filed by him. I have gone through the cases,
but they are clearly distinguishable. The respondent in both
cases died during the pendency of the firs appeal, and an
objection as to abatement was taken during the course of the
hearing, so that there was no question of abandoning the
objection in either of these cases and it was permissible to
apply to the court for the usual consequences which follow
for non-compliance with the provisions of order XXII rules 3
and 4 C.P.C. Those decisions cannot therefore be of any help
in a case like this.
P. Dasa Muni Reddy vs P. Appa Rao on 10 September, 1974
Mr. Sen's reference to Maharana Shri Davlatinghji
Thjakore Saheb of Limit v. Khachar Hamir Mon,(3) Town
Municipal Council, Athani
610
v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Hubli and others, (1)
Simpson and another v. Crowle and others(2) Chief Justice of
Andhra Pradesh and another v. L. V. A. Dikshitula and
others(3) and P. Dasa Muni Reddy v. P. Appa Rao(4) is
equally futile because they were cases of inherent lack of
jurisdiction in the court concerned or raised the question
of the bar of limitation.
Daya Ram And Others vs Shyam Sundari on 8 September, 1964
If this is the discernible principle underlying order
22, rules 3 and 4 it has been demonstrably established by
interpretation put on these two rules. Original view was
that all legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or
defendant must be substituted on the pain of the action
abating. With utmost diligence from a multitude some one may
escape notice and the consequent hardship in abatement of
action led this Court to assert the principle that where
some legal representatives are brought on record permitting
an inference that the estate is adequately represented, the
action would not abate though it would be the duty of the
other side to bring those legal representatives on record
who are overlooked or missed even at a later date. When the
aforementioned two provisions speak of legal representatives
it only means that if after diligent and bona fide enquiry
the party liable to bring the legal representatives on
record ascertains who are the legal representatives of a
deceased party and brings them on record within the time
limited by law, there is no abatement of the suit or appeal
on the ground that some other legal representatives have not
been brought on record, because the impleaded legal
representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the
deceased and the decision would bind not only those
impleaded but the entire estate including the interest of
those not brought on record. This view has been consistently
adopted by this Court in Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari
(1) N. K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N. C. Mohammad Ismail &
Ors.;(2) and Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad
Singh & Ors.(3) The principle deducible from these decisions
is that not only the interest of the deceased was adequately
taken care of by those who were on record but they had the
opportunity to put forth their case within permissible
limits. Neither the case of the deceased nor of his
successors in-interest has gone by default. In other words,
the principle is that if thd deceased had as a party a right
to put forth his case, those likely to be affected by the
decision on death of the deceased had the same opportunity
to put forth their case and even if from a large number
having identical interest some are not brought on record
those who are brought on record would adequately take care
of their interest and the cause in the absence of some such
would not abate. In legal parlance this procedure affords an
opportunity of being heard in all its ramification before a
decision on the pending list is taken.
N.K. Mohammad Sulaiman vs N. C. Mohammad Ismail And Others on 23 September, 1965
If this is the discernible principle underlying order
22, rules 3 and 4 it has been demonstrably established by
interpretation put on these two rules. Original view was
that all legal representatives of a deceased plaintiff or
defendant must be substituted on the pain of the action
abating. With utmost diligence from a multitude some one may
escape notice and the consequent hardship in abatement of
action led this Court to assert the principle that where
some legal representatives are brought on record permitting
an inference that the estate is adequately represented, the
action would not abate though it would be the duty of the
other side to bring those legal representatives on record
who are overlooked or missed even at a later date. When the
aforementioned two provisions speak of legal representatives
it only means that if after diligent and bona fide enquiry
the party liable to bring the legal representatives on
record ascertains who are the legal representatives of a
deceased party and brings them on record within the time
limited by law, there is no abatement of the suit or appeal
on the ground that some other legal representatives have not
been brought on record, because the impleaded legal
representatives sufficiently represent the estate of the
deceased and the decision would bind not only those
impleaded but the entire estate including the interest of
those not brought on record. This view has been consistently
adopted by this Court in Daya Ram & Ors. v. Shyam Sundari
(1) N. K. Mohammad Sulaiman v. N. C. Mohammad Ismail &
Ors.;(2) and Harihar Prasad Singh & Ors. v. Balmiki Prasad
Singh & Ors.(3) The principle deducible from these decisions
is that not only the interest of the deceased was adequately
taken care of by those who were on record but they had the
opportunity to put forth their case within permissible
limits. Neither the case of the deceased nor of his
successors in-interest has gone by default. In other words,
the principle is that if thd deceased had as a party a right
to put forth his case, those likely to be affected by the
decision on death of the deceased had the same opportunity
to put forth their case and even if from a large number
having identical interest some are not brought on record
those who are brought on record would adequately take care
of their interest and the cause in the absence of some such
would not abate. In legal parlance this procedure affords an
opportunity of being heard in all its ramification before a
decision on the pending list is taken.
Mahabir Prasad vs Jage Ram & Ors on 6 January, 1971
In Mahabir Prasad v. Jage
Ram & Ors.,(1) this Court was called upon to consider
whether where a legal representative of a deceased party is
on record in another capacity, failure to implead him as
legal representative of the deceased party would result in
abatement of the action ? In that case Mahabir Prasad, his
wife Saroj Devi and his mother Gunwanti Devi filed a suit
against Jaga Ram and two others for recovering rent then due
in the aggregate amount of Rs. 61,750/-. The suit ended in a
decree. The execution of the decree was resisted by the
defendants on the plea inter alia that the decree was
inexecutable because of the provisions of Delhi Land Reforms
Act, 1954. This contention found favour with the executing
court and the application for execution was dismissed.
Mahabir Prasad, one of the decree holders alone appealed
against that order and impleaded Gunwati Devi and Saroj Devi
as party respondents along with the original judgment-
debtors. Saroj Devi died in November 1962 and Mahabir Prasad
applied that the name of Saroj Devi be struck of from the
array of respondents. The High Court made an order granting
the application "subject to all just exceptions".
Subsequently the High Court dismissed the appeal holding
that because the heirs and legal representatives of Saroj
Devi were not brought on record within the period of
limitation, the appeal abated in its entirety. This Court,
while setting aside the order made by the High Court holding
that the appeal abated, observed as under: