Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.20 seconds)Jehrabi Sadullakhan Mokasi vs Bismillabi Sadruddin Kaji on 12 February, 1924
10. The Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Nagpur, Oudh, Patna, Lahore, Peshawar and Rajasthan Courts have held that even if one of the several legal representatives of a deceased defendant or respondent is alone impleaded he sufficiently represents the estate and the suit does not abate; vide Mahomed Hammad v. Tej Narain Lal, AIR 1942 All 324; Jehrabi Sadullakhan v. Bismillabi Sadruddin, AIR 1924 Bom 420; Mulchand Hemraj v. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj, AIR 1935 Bom 287; Kadir Mohideen v. Muthukrishna, 1LR 26 Mad 230; Abdulla Sahib v. Beevi Animal, AIR 1928 Mad 1199; Abdul Baki v. Bansilal Abirchand Firm, Nagpur, AIR 1945 Nag 53; Radha Raman v. Anant Singh, AIR 1945 Oudh 196; Madhusudan Lal v. Sailendra, AIR 1950 Pat 359; Khuda Bakhsh v. Narain Das, 18 Ind Cas 44 (Punj); Bahadur Khan v. Majid AIR 1938 Pesh 4; add Poonam Chand v. Motilal, AIR 1954 Raj 287.
Mulchand Hemraj vs Jairamdas Chaturbhuj on 14 August, 1934
10. The Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Nagpur, Oudh, Patna, Lahore, Peshawar and Rajasthan Courts have held that even if one of the several legal representatives of a deceased defendant or respondent is alone impleaded he sufficiently represents the estate and the suit does not abate; vide Mahomed Hammad v. Tej Narain Lal, AIR 1942 All 324; Jehrabi Sadullakhan v. Bismillabi Sadruddin, AIR 1924 Bom 420; Mulchand Hemraj v. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj, AIR 1935 Bom 287; Kadir Mohideen v. Muthukrishna, 1LR 26 Mad 230; Abdulla Sahib v. Beevi Animal, AIR 1928 Mad 1199; Abdul Baki v. Bansilal Abirchand Firm, Nagpur, AIR 1945 Nag 53; Radha Raman v. Anant Singh, AIR 1945 Oudh 196; Madhusudan Lal v. Sailendra, AIR 1950 Pat 359; Khuda Bakhsh v. Narain Das, 18 Ind Cas 44 (Punj); Bahadur Khan v. Majid AIR 1938 Pesh 4; add Poonam Chand v. Motilal, AIR 1954 Raj 287.
Kadir Mohideen Marakkayar vs Muthukrishna Aiyar And Anr. on 24 April, 1902
10. The Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Nagpur, Oudh, Patna, Lahore, Peshawar and Rajasthan Courts have held that even if one of the several legal representatives of a deceased defendant or respondent is alone impleaded he sufficiently represents the estate and the suit does not abate; vide Mahomed Hammad v. Tej Narain Lal, AIR 1942 All 324; Jehrabi Sadullakhan v. Bismillabi Sadruddin, AIR 1924 Bom 420; Mulchand Hemraj v. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj, AIR 1935 Bom 287; Kadir Mohideen v. Muthukrishna, 1LR 26 Mad 230; Abdulla Sahib v. Beevi Animal, AIR 1928 Mad 1199; Abdul Baki v. Bansilal Abirchand Firm, Nagpur, AIR 1945 Nag 53; Radha Raman v. Anant Singh, AIR 1945 Oudh 196; Madhusudan Lal v. Sailendra, AIR 1950 Pat 359; Khuda Bakhsh v. Narain Das, 18 Ind Cas 44 (Punj); Bahadur Khan v. Majid AIR 1938 Pesh 4; add Poonam Chand v. Motilal, AIR 1954 Raj 287.
Abdulla Sahib vs Vageer Beevi Ammal And Ors. on 18 July, 1928
10. The Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Nagpur, Oudh, Patna, Lahore, Peshawar and Rajasthan Courts have held that even if one of the several legal representatives of a deceased defendant or respondent is alone impleaded he sufficiently represents the estate and the suit does not abate; vide Mahomed Hammad v. Tej Narain Lal, AIR 1942 All 324; Jehrabi Sadullakhan v. Bismillabi Sadruddin, AIR 1924 Bom 420; Mulchand Hemraj v. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj, AIR 1935 Bom 287; Kadir Mohideen v. Muthukrishna, 1LR 26 Mad 230; Abdulla Sahib v. Beevi Animal, AIR 1928 Mad 1199; Abdul Baki v. Bansilal Abirchand Firm, Nagpur, AIR 1945 Nag 53; Radha Raman v. Anant Singh, AIR 1945 Oudh 196; Madhusudan Lal v. Sailendra, AIR 1950 Pat 359; Khuda Bakhsh v. Narain Das, 18 Ind Cas 44 (Punj); Bahadur Khan v. Majid AIR 1938 Pesh 4; add Poonam Chand v. Motilal, AIR 1954 Raj 287.
Poonam Chand vs Motilal on 23 August, 1954
10. The Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Nagpur, Oudh, Patna, Lahore, Peshawar and Rajasthan Courts have held that even if one of the several legal representatives of a deceased defendant or respondent is alone impleaded he sufficiently represents the estate and the suit does not abate; vide Mahomed Hammad v. Tej Narain Lal, AIR 1942 All 324; Jehrabi Sadullakhan v. Bismillabi Sadruddin, AIR 1924 Bom 420; Mulchand Hemraj v. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj, AIR 1935 Bom 287; Kadir Mohideen v. Muthukrishna, 1LR 26 Mad 230; Abdulla Sahib v. Beevi Animal, AIR 1928 Mad 1199; Abdul Baki v. Bansilal Abirchand Firm, Nagpur, AIR 1945 Nag 53; Radha Raman v. Anant Singh, AIR 1945 Oudh 196; Madhusudan Lal v. Sailendra, AIR 1950 Pat 359; Khuda Bakhsh v. Narain Das, 18 Ind Cas 44 (Punj); Bahadur Khan v. Majid AIR 1938 Pesh 4; add Poonam Chand v. Motilal, AIR 1954 Raj 287.
Krishna Behari Goel vs Raj Mangal Persad And Ors. on 18 September, 1953
16. It only remains to consider if the claim for Rs. 3,010/8/- was a personal one and died with the death
of Vidyadhar. A well-known exception to the maxim action personalis moritur cum persona is that where the estate of the deceased has been enriched as a result of his wrongful action the claim for damages arising out of such enrichment does not die with the death of the wrongdoer, vide Ghulam Rashid v. Muhammad Abdul Rab, AIR 1941 All 137 and Krishna Behari v. Raj Mangal Persad, AIR 1954 All 182. A perusal of the plaint in the suit for damages indicates that the sum of Rs. 3,010/8/- was claimed as damages on account of the misappropriation by the deceased defendant Vidyadhar of the debris of the house belonging to the respondent. The estate of the deceased had thus benefited
and the aforesaid claim, therefore, could be enforced against his estate.
The Andhra Bank Ltd vs R. Srinivasan And Others on 31 August, 1961
Both the suits were decreed inter alia against respondents Nos. 2 to 12 for recovery of a sum of Rs. 20,000/-which was the limit of guarantee executed by the Raja Bahadur. The suit was also decreed against respondent No. 1 for the amount claimed. Against the decree two appeals were filed in the High Court at Madras one by respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and the other by respondent No. 2 and his sons respondents Nos. 6 to 3. These appeals were accepted on the ground that the decrees were invalid and had been passed by the Hyderabad Court without jurisdiction. The matter was taken up in appeal to the Supreme Court. One of the questions that arose for decision in that case was as to whether a legatee who obtained only a part of the estate of the deceased under a will could be said to be the legal representative of the deceased. The expression 'legal representative' had not been defined in the Code of 1882 and that led to a difference of judicial opinion on the question as to whether the expression as used in Section 234 of the Code could not include any body except the heir, executor or the administrator of the deceased.
Section 5 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Madhusudan Lal vs Sailendra Kishore on 21 February, 1950
10. The Allahabad, Bombay, Madras, Nagpur, Oudh, Patna, Lahore, Peshawar and Rajasthan Courts have held that even if one of the several legal representatives of a deceased defendant or respondent is alone impleaded he sufficiently represents the estate and the suit does not abate; vide Mahomed Hammad v. Tej Narain Lal, AIR 1942 All 324; Jehrabi Sadullakhan v. Bismillabi Sadruddin, AIR 1924 Bom 420; Mulchand Hemraj v. Jairamdas Chaturbhuj, AIR 1935 Bom 287; Kadir Mohideen v. Muthukrishna, 1LR 26 Mad 230; Abdulla Sahib v. Beevi Animal, AIR 1928 Mad 1199; Abdul Baki v. Bansilal Abirchand Firm, Nagpur, AIR 1945 Nag 53; Radha Raman v. Anant Singh, AIR 1945 Oudh 196; Madhusudan Lal v. Sailendra, AIR 1950 Pat 359; Khuda Bakhsh v. Narain Das, 18 Ind Cas 44 (Punj); Bahadur Khan v. Majid AIR 1938 Pesh 4; add Poonam Chand v. Motilal, AIR 1954 Raj 287.