Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)M. Veerappa vs Evelyn Sequeira & Ors on 13 January, 1988
In any case there is no merit in the submission that an executor alone can continue the suit and other legal representatives are not entitled to continue the proceedings in view of the observations of the Supreme Court in M. Veerappa v. Evelyn Sequeira (Supra) as follows:
Section 306 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Dareppa Alagouda vs Mallappa Shivalingappa on 13 March, 1946
11. The first contention of Mr. Chinoy in opposition to the Chamber Summons is based on Order XXII which enables the Court to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party so that he can proceed with the suit. According to Mr. Chinoy a person who wishes to be brought on record as a legal representative can only carry on the suit as framed by the plaintiff for an assertion of and on the cause of action pleaded therein. In other words, a person who wishes to assert an independent or a right hostile to that of the deceased plaintiff is not entitled to be brought on record as a legal representative. Mr. Chinoy relied on a decision of this Court in Dareppa Alagouda v. Mallappa Shivalingappa and a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Mahindra Singh and Ors. v. Chander Singh and Ors. in support of the proposition. In the first case, this Court held it was not open to a legal representative of a deceased defendant to assert his individual or hostile title to the suit. It was held that if a legal representative wants to raise any new point which the deceased party could not have raised he must get himself impleaded in his personal capacity or challenge a decree in a separate suit. Therefore, where a deceased defendant was estopped from challenging his right to mortgage the vatan land beyond his lifetime his legal representative was held equally disentitle to plead that father could not mortgage the vatan land beyond his lifetime.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Section 40 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 213 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Mahindra Singh And Ors. vs Chander Singh And Ors. on 23 January, 1956
11. The first contention of Mr. Chinoy in opposition to the Chamber Summons is based on Order XXII which enables the Court to bring on record the legal representative of the deceased plaintiff to be made a party so that he can proceed with the suit. According to Mr. Chinoy a person who wishes to be brought on record as a legal representative can only carry on the suit as framed by the plaintiff for an assertion of and on the cause of action pleaded therein. In other words, a person who wishes to assert an independent or a right hostile to that of the deceased plaintiff is not entitled to be brought on record as a legal representative. Mr. Chinoy relied on a decision of this Court in Dareppa Alagouda v. Mallappa Shivalingappa and a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Mahindra Singh and Ors. v. Chander Singh and Ors. in support of the proposition. In the first case, this Court held it was not open to a legal representative of a deceased defendant to assert his individual or hostile title to the suit. It was held that if a legal representative wants to raise any new point which the deceased party could not have raised he must get himself impleaded in his personal capacity or challenge a decree in a separate suit. Therefore, where a deceased defendant was estopped from challenging his right to mortgage the vatan land beyond his lifetime his legal representative was held equally disentitle to plead that father could not mortgage the vatan land beyond his lifetime.