Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.21 seconds)Section 100 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 101 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Smt. Satyabhamadevi Choubey vs Ramkishore Pandey on 11 July, 1974
The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the decision in Satyabhamadevi v. Ramkishore, AIR 1975 MP 115 held that Order 41 applies to Letters Patent Appeals and in appeals from the decisions of a single Judge in original matters or in first appeals which lie to the High Court as of right under Clause 10 of the Letter Patent (MP). Relying on the decision in AIR 1921 PC 80, it was held that cross objection can be filed under Rule 22 as of right. The Jammu and Kashmir High Court is also of the same view.
Mangal Singh & Ors vs Shrimati Rattno & Anr on 6 April, 1967
In Mangal Singh v. Rattno, AIR 1967 SC 1766 the Supreme Court held that the use of the expression "possessed by" instead of the expression "in possession of" in Section 14(1) was intended to enlarge the meaning of this expression. It was observed that the expression used in Section 14(1) of the Act was intended to cover cases of possession in law also, where lands may have descended to a female Hindu and she has not actually entered into them. On the language of Section 14(1) the Supreme Court held that the provision will become applicable to any property which is owned by a female Hindu even though she is not in actual, physical or constructive possession of that property. .
Sabitri Thakurain vs Savi on 26 January, 1921
14. Rule 1 of Order 42 makes the rules of Order 41 so far as may be applicable to appelas from appellate decrees. Rule 2 introduced by the amendment of 1976 only refers to the power of court to direct that the appeal be heard on the questions formulated by it. That was inserted in consequence to the amendment made in Section 100. Still Rule 1 of Order 42 remained unchanged. The question whether the provisions contained in Rule 10 of Order 41 apply to appeals under Letters Patent came up for consideration before the Privy Council in Sabitri Thakurain v. Savi, AIR 1921 PC 80, where it was held that the provision applies to appeals under Letters Patent as to appeal under the Civil Procedure Code.
1