Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.30 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Dolai Molliko & Ors vs Krushna Chandra Patnaik & Ors on 23 March, 1966
"This is not to say that where heirs of an appellant are to be brought on record and all of them should not be brought on record and any of them should be deliberately left out. But if by oversight or on account of some doubt as to who are the heirs, any heir of a deceased appellant is left out that in itself would be no reason for holding that the entire estate of the deceased is not represented unless circumstances like fraud or collusion to which we have referred above exist".
Section 47 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Surinder Singh vs Central Government & Ors on 26 September, 1986
4. The Apex Court has held that it is mandatory on the part of the petitioner to produce the impugned orders when the petitioner is seeking to quash the impugned orders. Without producing the same, writ cannot be
issued. The Apex Court in Surinder Singh v. Central Govt., 1986 (4) S.C.C. 670 has held as follows:
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
N.K. Mohammad Sulaiman vs N. C. Mohammad Ismail And Others on 23 September, 1965
7. Moreover, the suit is decreed after impleading one of the legal heirs of the deceased defendant and no fraud or collusion is alleged. The only objection of the learned counsel is that all the legal heirs of the deceased defendant have not been impleaded. In such circumstances it cannot be said
that the said decree is a nullity. It is relevant to mention here that the petitioners have produced the legal heir certificate dated 15.3.1985 which is furnished to the brother of the petitioners, who has been impleaded as the legal representative of the deceased defendant. When this Court put a question to the learned counsel as to how the petitioners got the said certificate, the learned counsel has submitted that the same was given by the brother of the petitioners. Even from the above said fact, the petitioners cannot allege any act of fraud against their brother. The Apex Court while dealing with similar situation in Mohd Sulaiman v. Mohd.Ismail, has held as follows:-
1