Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.29 seconds)
Sheopujan Singh And Anr. vs Chandi Singh And Ors. on 20 September, 1950 cites

Sadho Saran Rai And Ors. vs Anant Rai And Ors. on 11 May, 1923

In Sadho Saran Rai v. Anant Rai, 2 pat. 731: (A. I. R. (10) 1923 pat. 483) it was held by a Division Bench that a Court was not competent either in review or under its inherent powers to set aside a compromise decree on the ground that the consent of the parties to the compromise was obtained by fraud. A distinction was drawn in cases where fraud is practised upon a party and where fraud is practised upon Court. There are authorities to the effect that a Court has inherent power to correct its own proceedings when it is satisfied that in the passing of a particular order it was misled by one of the parties. But where one of the parties alleges not a fraud upon the Court but only that his consent to compromise was procured by fraud the Court cannot investigate the matter either in review or in exercise of its inherent power and the only remedy of the party is to institute a suit to set aside the decree on the ground of fraud. Applying these principles to the present case, it is obvious that there is no allegation that the Court was misled by any fraud practised upon it and the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction under Section 151 to cancel his order dated 13-8-1949 by which he substituted Sheopujan Singh and Rampujan Singh in place of the deceased Jamurata Kuer.
Patna High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Oula And Ors. vs Beepathee And Anr. on 18 September, 1893

From the narrative of facts, it will be seen, that after the death of Jamurata Kuer separate petitions were filed on behalf of different persons claiming to be substituted in place of the deceased appellant. It is true that on 13-8 1949 Sheolakhan Singh, Rajkishore Singh and Chandi Singh filed patitions praying for permission to withdraw from the case and admitted that Rampujan and Sheopujan were really the sole reversioners of Sahebjada Singh. Upon this the learned Subordinate Judge made an order that Sheopujan and Rampujan should be substituted. Even so it is apparent that this order is made under Order 22, Rule 5 and not under Order 22, Rule 8 which applies only where there is no dispute as to who is legal representative of a deceased party to the appeal. Reference may be made to Oula v. Bepathee, 17 Mad. 210 : (3 M. L. J. 89) in which it was held that Section 365 presupposes that the party claiming to represent; a deceased plaintiff is his legal representative. But if there is a dispute as to whether any person is or is not legal representative of the deceased party it should be determined by the Court under Rule 5 of Order 22. If the order dated 13-8-1949 is not a mere formal act but it is a judicial determination that Sheopujan and Rampujan were the legal representatives of the deceased appellant it must be held that the learned Subordinate Judge had no jurisdiction to cancel that order and to reopen the question merely on the subsequent allegation of Chandi and Ramgovind that fraud had been practised by Jamuna Singh.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Vatsalabai Vishnu Sukhtankar vs Sambhaji Pandurang Nabar on 25 June, 1918

On behalf of the opposite party, Mr. K. D. Chatterji placed reliance upon Vatsalabai v. Sambhaji Pandurang, 43 Bom. 168: (A. I. R. (5) 1918 Bom. 100). But the facts of that case may be clearly distinguished. A suit had been filed by five persons, one of whom R died while the suit was pending. Thereupon an application was made on behalf of minor G, son of the plaintiff 1 that he should be brought on the record as heir and legal representative of the deceased R relying upon an alleged adoption. The Subordinate Judge granted the application and amended the record by substituting G's name for that of Rule Subsequently, the minor daughters of R having learnt of the application applied that G's name should he deleted and their name should be brought on the record in his place as G's adoption was fictitious. The Subordinate Judge held that he could not alter his previous order in view of Rule 3 of Order 22, Civil P. C. The High Court interfered on the ground that under Rule 5 of Order 22 the Subordinate Judge had the power to correct the order previously made and to determine who were the real legal representatives of the deceased plaintiff. It is patent that the Subordinate Judge had made the previous order under Rule 3 of Order 22 and since the subsequent petition was filed within the period of limitation it is obvious that the Subordinate Judge was bound to determine the question as to who were the legal representatives of the de-ceased plaintiff. In the present case, the facts are manifestly different for the Subordinate Judge had made the previous order dated 13-8-1949 under Rule 5 since the dispute had already arisen as regards proper persons to be substituted in place of the deceased Jamurata Kuer.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1