Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.59 seconds)Mt. Parwati Kuer And Ors. vs Manna Lal Khetan And Ors. on 4 April, 1956
29. The cases in which a doubt was expressed in this High Court about the correctness of the decision in ILR 19 Pat 870 : (AIR 1940 Pat 346) (FB) (A) are Radhamohan v. Shreekrishna, ILR 27 Pat 242 : (AIR 1948 Pat 460) (Z26); Kali Prasad v. Tulshi Prasad, AIR 1954 Pat 49 (Z27) and in the order of reference of the Full Bench case of Mt. Parwati Kuer v. Manna Lal Khetan (S) AIR 1956 Pat 414 (Z23) in which the point did not ultimately fall to be decided as it was a case of striking of the name of one of the appellants for some technical defect and was not the case of death.
Nathaniel Uraon vs Mahadeo Uraon And Ors. on 3 January, 1957
10. Mr. Lal Narayan Sinha referred to the cases, hereinafter mentioned, for the proposition that an abatement operates as a decree. The cases are Brij Inder Singh v. Kanshi Ram, 44 Ind App 218 : A 1 R 1917 P C 156 (B), Suppu Nayakan v. Perumal Chetty, AIR 1917 Mad 285 (C), Rahimunnissa Begam, v. M.A. Srinivasa Ayyangar, AIR 1920 Mad 580 (D), Naimuddin Biswas v. Maniruddin Lashkar, AIR 1928 Cal 184 (E), Barju Biswal v. Kunja Behari Mahapatra, ILR 10 Pat 471 : (AIR 1931 Pat 353) (F) Purushottamdas Sakalchand v. Devkaran Kesheoji, AIR 1939 Nag 39 (G) and Nathaniel Uraon v. Mahadeo Uraon, AIR 1957 Pat 511 (H).
H.H. Darbar Alabhai Vajsurbhai vs Bhura Bhaya on 9 September, 1936
18. Mr. P. R. Das submitted that abatement is automatic and does not operate as a decree. He submitted that a subsequent suit may be barred due to several reasons and that by itself would not make the order of abatement operate as a decree. He made reference to the analogous provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 and Order 23, Rule 1 (3) to show that subsequent suits were barred on many considerations. In my opinion, simply because a suit is barred under some provision of the Code on the happening of a certain event, the happening of that event would not operate as a decree. But what operates as a decree is the final order in the suit or the appeal disposing of the same on the ground of the happening of the event, Mr. P. R. Das relied upon the following cases for the proposition that abatement is automatic. The cases are Hamida Bibi v. Ali Husen Khan, I L R 17 All 172 (I) ; Churya v. Baneshvvar, A I R 1926 All 217 (F B) (J) ; Ram Gopal v. Har Kishen, A I R 1925 Lah 598 (K) ; Hirisa Hatansa v. Janu, AIR 1937 Nag 88 (L); Alabbai Vajsurbhai v. Bhura Bhaya, AIR 1937 Bom 401 (M) and Aiyappan Pillai v. Kesavaru. A I R 1953 Trav-Co 545 (F B) (N).
R.M.M.S.T. Somasundaram Chettiar ... vs Vaithilinga Mudaliar And Ors. on 15 November, 1916
25. Though some of the Madras cases have taken the view that the order of abatement operates as a decree, yet it is interesting to note that the Madras High Court has uniformly held in the following cases that in the circumstances similar to the present case powers under Order 41, Rule 4, Civil P. C., are available to the appellate Court to be exercised, if thought proper. The cases are Somasundaram Chettiar v. Vaithilinga Mudaliar, I L R 40 Mad 846 : (AIR 1918 Mad 794 (2)) (P); Changarama Naidu v. Gangulu Naidu, AIR 1925 Mad 235 (Q): (Kompalli-Chenchuramayya v. Daraa Venkatasubhayya Chetty) A I R 1933 Mad 655 (R); Sakkarai Chettiar v. Chellappa Chettiar, AIR 1938 Mad 374 (S) and Artharama Rabu v. Arthapadhi, 25 Mad L J 248 (T).
Dhondo Khando vs Waman Balwant on 4 January, 1944
27. In Bombay the uniform view is in line with the Madras view. The Bombay cases are Chandarsang v. Khimabhai, ILR 22 Bom 718 (Z1): Chintaman Nilkant v. Gangabai, ILR 27 Bom 284 (Z2) Shripad Balvant v. Nagu Kushaba, A I R 1943 Bom 301 (Z3) and Dhondo Khando v. Waman Balwant, AIR 1945 Born 126 (Z4).
Naimuddin Biswas And Ors. vs Maniruddin Lashkar And Ors. on 10 May, 1927
In Calcutta the earlier cases are in line with the Full Bench case of ILR 19 Pat 870 : (A I R 1940 Pat 346) (A) and those cases are Protap Chandra Chatterjee v. Durga Charan Ghose, 9 Cal W N 1061 (Z5); Naimuddin Biswas v. Maniruddin Laskar, 32 Cal W N 299: AIR 1928 Cal 184) (Z6); Rai Harendra Nath v. Dwijendra Nath, 37 Cal W N 756 : (A I R 1933 Cal 787) (Z7) and Hari Charan Moulik v. Kalipada Chakravarti, ILR 56 Cal 622 : (A I R 1929 Cal 519) (Z8).
Pyarelal And Ors. vs Modi Sikharchand on 31 December, 1956
The view expressed in I L R i9 Pat 870: (AIR 1940 Pat 346) (FB) (A) has also been adopted in Malobi v. Gaus Mohamad, AIR 1949 Nag 91 (Z16); Lilawati Bai v. Gangadhar, AIR 1953 Nag 12 (Z17); Aravinda Sarma v. Payodhar Barua, AIR 1950 Assam 53 (Z18) Joygrioram v. Dayaram Das, AIR 1950 Assam 54 (Z19); Sonahar AH v. Mukbul AH, AIR 1956 Assam 164 (Z20); Nanak v. Ahmad Ali, AIR 1946 Lah 399 (FB) (Z21); Pyarelal v. Modi Sikharchand, AIR 1957 Madh Pra 89 (Z22); Balaktishna Patro v. Balu Subuilhi, AIR 1949 Pat 184 (Z23); Ramdhari v. Rambharosa, ILR 32 Pat 1138 (Z24) and Sarju Singh v. Kamsaroopsing, AIR 1955 Pat 155 (Z25).