Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.33 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Nand Kishore Mehra vs Sushila Mehra on 2 July, 1995
(35) The defendants/appellants filed the copy of death certificate of Sushila Mehra and the photo copy of documents related to suit no. 339 of 1992 Nand Kishore Mehra vs. Sushila Mehra, which disclosed during the pendency of the above suit, she died on 02.4.1996, and for bringing her legal heir on record substitution application was filed by her husband Nand Kishore Mehra in the above suit which was allowed, and ultimately the suit was also decreed ex-parte by the High Court of Delhi on 7.5.1999.
Section 35A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Kiran Singh And Others vs Chaman Paswan And Others on 14 April, 1954
14. The execution proceedings herein could not have been dismissed on the ground that the decree passed by the trial Court was superseded by the decree passed by the first appellate Court and was modified. Since the decree of the first appellate Court was a nullity, the plaintiffs were entitled to execute the decree passed by the trial Court. It is well settled that if a decree is a nullity, its invalidity can be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced, even at the stage of execution as held in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Paswan 1954 INSC 45.
Article 120 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Ashok Transport Agency vs Awadhesh Kumar And Another on 31 March, 1998
(38) It is apparent that O.S. no.1126 of 2019 was filed in the year 2019, which was decided on 31.5.2022, but much prior to the filing and decision of the suit, Sushila Mehra had previously died on 2.4.1996, as such, applying the ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the cases Vikram Bhalchandra Ghongade (supra) and Ashok Transport Agency (supra), the decree passed in O.S.no.1126 of 2019 was a nullity, which did not confer any right title or interest in the disputed property in the plaintiff and as such, wherever and whenever the decree was sought to be enforced by the plaintiff, it could have been resisted by the defendants on the ground of being a nullity, which does not act as res-judicata, in any manner whatsoever.
The Limitation Act, 1963
Section 21 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Bibi Rahmani Khatoon & Ors vs Harkoo Gope & Ors on 22 April, 1981
13. In our view, therefore, the appellant is justified in seeking execution of the decree passed by the trial Court on the premise that the decree passed by the first appellate Court was a nullity having been passed in favour of dead persons. We are fortified in this view by the decision in Bibi Rahmani Khatoon v. Harkoo Gope (1981) 3 SCC 173, wherein it was held as under: