Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.50 seconds)
Ram Ugrah Ojha And Anr. vs Ganesh Singh on 29 November, 1939 cites

Mt. Moti Bala Debi vs Satyanand Tirtha Swami on 11 January, 1930

3. The objections which are raised by the appellants to the preparation of the final decree are not open to them as legal representatives of the deceased. They are raising these contentions in their personal capacity. The personal rights of the objectors and whatever remedy they may have in exercise thereof are not affected by the present decree. The decree will not bar their personal remedy because the defence which they might wish to raise in exercise of their personal rights is not open to them to raise in the present proceedings under Order 22, Rule 4, Civil P.C. In Moti Bala Devi v. Satyanand Tirtha Swami (1930) 17 AIR All 348, on which reliance is placed by the appellants, it was observed:
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Kalloo And Anr. vs Niader Singh And Anr. on 10 January, 1929

6. Kalkanand Swami not having been sued in a representative character and Satyanand Swami not having been brought on the record as having succeeded to the mahantship, the defence that was raised by him was not open to him under Order 22, Rule 4, Civil P.C., with all respect to the learned Judges who decided this case we do not therefore agree with the decision. The law has been correctly laid down in Kalloo v. Niader Singh (1929) 16 AIR All 252. There, subsequent to a preliminary decree obtained by the defendants against the plaintiffs' father alone without impleading the plaintiffs, the father died and the plaintiffs were substituted as his legal representative. A final decree was then passed ex parte. Later on, the plaintiffs unsuccessfully tried to have the ex parte decree set aside, raised objections to the preparation of the final decree and attacked the mortgaged decree on the ground that the mortgage was without legal necessity. It was held:
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1