Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (3.54 seconds)Section 14 in The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950 [Entire Act]
The Bihar Land Reforms Act, 1950
Krishna Prasad And Others vs Gauri Kumari Devi on 5 March, 1962
In the case of Krishna Prasad v. Gouri Kumari Devi it was held that the scheme of the Act postulates that all such creditors have to submit their claims before the Claims Officer and to follow the procedure prescribed under the Act and that they cannot avail of any remedy outside the Act by instituting a suit or any other proceeding in the court of ordinary civil jurisdiction.
Raj Kishore Prasad Narain Singh vs Ram Partap Pandey & Ors on 7 November, 1966
The Supreme Court has re-examined the matter in a recent case of Raj Kishore Prasad Narayan Singh v. Ram Pratap Pandey and reiterated the same view with approval. In the case of Krishna Prasad the entire mortgage security had vested in the State. In the case of Raj Kishore Prasad
Narayan Singh only part of the security had vested in the State and part was not vested.
Sidheshwar Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Ram Saroop Singh And Ors. on 16 May, 1963
In the latter case it has been observed overruling certain observations made in the two Full Bench decisions of this Court Sukhdeo Bas v. Kashi Prasad and Sidheshwar Prasad v. Ram Saroop , that in respect of the secured property which has not vested in the State no question of election could arise and the creditor could proceed against such property otherwise than in accordance with the Bihar Land Reforms Act but not in respect of vested property. In the circumstances, it is manifest that the court below has erred in allowing the decree holder to attach and proceed against the compensation money payable for the property already vested in the State under the Bihar Land Reforms Act and there is no force at all in its observation that as the compensation money was the substituted security for the property mortgaged which has vested in the State of Bihar, the decree holder can proceed against it inasmuch as in making a claim under Section 14 of the Bihar Land Reforms Act, one proceeds against the compensation, money and not against the proper vested. Different considerations may arise after the compensation money is received by the intermediary from the State, but we are not concerned with that question in the present appeal.
Suresh Mohan Thakur vs Shamal Mall Bubna on 28 January, 1957
6. The explanation to Section 47 says that for the purposes of this Section a plaintiff whose suit has been dismissed, a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed and a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree are parties to the suit. The words "and a purchaser at a sale in execution of the decree" were added by the amending Act of 1956. This Explanation was construed not to cover the cases of those who were not necessary party to the suit and whose names were struck off from the plaint before the decision of the suit. The above-discussed contention was put forward by Mr. S. Asghar Hussain on account of the aforesaid construction put on the Explanation in Judicial decisions. Even in cases where a party had no concern with the suit, but his name was not removed from the record, it was held that he was not a party to the suit for the purposes of Section 47, Discussions in these decisions, however, leave no room for doubt that in a case where the plaintiff abandons the claim against a defendant and the suit is dismissed as against him, he is a party to the suit for the purpose of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. A Bench decision
of this Court in the case of Suresh Mohan Thakur v. Shatnal Mall Bubna , after discussing the various decisions of the different High Courts on the point took the same view.
Shiva Pujan Dubey And Anr. vs Baban Lal And Ors. on 20 December, 1956
In another Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shiv Pujan Dubey v. Baban Lal , it was held that minor defendants who had succeeded in setting aside the ex parte decree against them on the ground that they were not duly represented and as such the decree was void against them in an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code, were parties to the suit within the meaning of Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure, by virtue of the Explanation to the Section.
Chittirala Mahalakshmamma vs Senisetti Hanumayya And Anr. on 13 February, 1953
Learned Counsel for the respondent decree holder placed strong reliance on a single judge decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Chittirala Mahalakshmamma v. Senisetti Hanumayya but on a closer examination it appears that the decision does not support the contention. It makes a distinction between a party who had been dismissed from the suit and another against whom the suit sad been dismissed, and lays down that a party against whom the suit had been dismissed would be a party for the purpose of Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure. The present case being a case where the suit was dismissed against the appellants on contest, this Madras decision also is
of no help to the decree holder-respondent.
1