Baij Nath And Anr. vs Ram Bharose And Ors. on 10 April, 1953
Rule 3 C. P. C. The decision in Baij Nath's case (supra) was approved.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)Mahabir Prasad vs Jage Ram & Ors on 6 January, 1971
In Mahabir Prasad's case Jttge Ham and two others were lessees of certain property belonging to Mahabir Prasad, his mother and wife. The plaintiff's suit for arrears of rent was decreed. The execution of that decree was resisted by the defendants on the plea, inter alia, that the decree was inexecutable because of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954. That contention was upheld and the execution application was dismissed. From that order Mahabir Prasad alone filed an appeal and impleaded his mother and wife as party-respondents. When the appeal was pending his wife died and he made an application for striking off her name from the array of respondents. That application was allowed. Ultimately the appeal was dismissed for the reason that the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased had not been brought on the record within the period of limitation prescribed and the appeal
abated in its entirety.
Shibban And Ors. vs Allah Mehar And Anr. on 16 February, 1934
In support of this contention reliance was placed on Shibban v. Allah Mehar, AIR 1934 All 716. It was laid down in that case that in a suit for possession and injunction against trespassers in the event, of one of trespassers dying and his heirs not being
brought on the record would not make it impossible to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiffs against the trespassers who are before the Court. Such decree would, of course, be against the defendants in their personal capacity. The present case is distinguishable inasmuch as it was not solely for injunction. There was claim for damages also which was partly decreed by the trial Court. That decree was reversed in appeal though it had become final against the heirs of the deceased defendants who had not been brought on the record within the period prescribed by law.
The Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954
Girja Shanker Singh And Ors. vs Ram Singh And Ors. on 17 March, 1980
Apart from that in Girja Shanker Singh v. Ram Singh, 1980 All WC 321: (AIR 1980 All 334) in a suit for mandatory injunction because of plaintiff's failure to bring the legal representatives of one of the defendants on the record within the time prescribed it was hold that abatement took place because the right to sue did not survive against the surviving defendants alone.
1