1879/1981 and hence, the decree obtained in the above said suit is not binding on Perumal Gounder and the plaintiffs and much earlier ... when the said decree had become final and not set aside till date, it is found that the said decree binds upon the defendant therein
proforma defendant, in that case, submission is that decree in
previous suit would not bind either Shankarrao or his legal heirs. It
is submitted that ... Whether the decree obtained in suit under Order XXI Rule
63 of the Code was a collusive decree not binding on the legal
heirs
granted injunction against the defendant from executing the decree
for possession though the said decree for possession granted by the
learned trial Judge in favour ... from Ishwara Khot
was thus not bound by the said decree and the said decree could not
be executed against them.
48. The lower appellate
property in her possession is binding on the
reversioner as the decree binds the estate. Thus it
becomes the duty of the Court to ascertain ... limited owner to the transferee. Decree was given
against limited owner and this decree was held to be
binding on the reversioner. This opportunity
regard to the recording of settlement, which would result
in a binding decree. The decision of the Supreme Court
in Ajad Singh (supra) and indeed ... record a lawful compromise
(Rule 3). In the latter event, a decree is also drawn in
terms of the compromise. The Supreme Court
Judgment and Decree dated
30.1.1976 was not a final and a binding decree because it was not registered
though it required registration under Section ... Decree dated
30.1.1976 in suit no. 11/1976.
(iii) The Judgment and Decree dated 30.1.1976 in suit no.11/1976 is
binding on the plaintiff
proforma defendant, in that case, submission is that decree in
previous suit would not bind either Shankarrao or his legal heirs. It
is submitted that ... Whether the decree obtained in suit under Order XXI Rule
63 of the Code was a collusive decree not binding on the legal
heirs
plaint;
(b) To declare that the judgment/decree dated 15.01.2002 in OS No. 6/1996
is not binding or enforceable since the issues raised ... thus a legal sanction to the said arrangement and once a binding
decree has been passed by a Court of law, a party
proforma defendant, in that case, submission is that decree in
previous suit would not bind either Shankarrao or his legal heirs. It
is submitted that ... Whether the decree obtained in suit under Order XXI Rule
63 of the Code was a collusive decree not binding on the legal
heirs
proforma defendant, in that case, submission is that decree in
previous suit would not bind either Shankarrao or his legal heirs. It
is submitted that ... Whether the decree obtained in suit under Order XXI Rule
63 of the Code was a collusive decree not binding on the legal
heirs
