Back
K.RAMASWAMY, S.B.MAJMUDAR
Satguru Sharan Shrivastava – Appellant
Versus
Dwarka Prasad Mathur – Respondent
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
The case involves a civil suit concerning the abatement of a suit due to the death of a party, specifically the first defendant in the original suit (!) (!) .
The petitioner claimed that a fraudulently obtained decree for specific performance was passed against him, and he sought to challenge this decree, alleging collusion and fraud (!) .
During the proceedings, both defendants died, and their legal representatives were substituted accordingly. The first defendant's widow was brought on record, and the second defendant's son was substituted as legal representative (!) .
The court observed that since the first defendant (judgment debtor) had died and no legal representative was brought on record to contest the decree, the decree against him became final, and the suit against him abated (!) .
The question arose whether a decree against a deceased person could be challenged or appealed, especially when the legal representatives were either substituted or absent. It was concluded that the decree against the first defendant was final and could not be re-opened (!) .
The court examined whether the decree against the second defendant (decree-holder) could be challenged, given the allegations of fraud and collusion. It was found that any finding in the appeal would be inconsistent with the finality of the decree against the first defendant, leading to the abatement of the entire suit (!) .
The petitioner argued that under the applicable procedural rules, the suit should not have abated entirely, and the legal representatives could be substituted without affecting the finality of the decree. However, the court held that once the decree against the first defendant became final and no legal representative was substituted, the entire suit was liable to abatement (!) .
Consequently, the court dismissed the special leave petition, affirming that the suit had abated and the decrees could not be challenged further (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal advice based on this document.
ORDER
Mr. Sushil Kr. Jain, Advocate takes notice for respondents.
2. This special leave petition arises from the judgment and order of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench made on May 15, 1996 in First Appeal No. 17/89. The admitted position is that one Dwaraka Prasad Mathur was a member of the Secretarial Staff Housing Cooperative Society. Plot No. 14-C was allotted to him as a member and thereon he had constructed a house. It is the case of the petitioner that he had entered into an oral agreement of sale with him to purchase the house for a consideration of Rs. 20000/- subject to his obtaining permission for transfer from the Society as per the law. It is his case that he had paid up the amount due from Dwaraka Prasad Mathur to the Society and became member of the Society as per the resolution passed by the Society. But before he got the possession, surprise pruned upon him in the form of a decree of specific performance obtained by the second respondent Narvedeshwar Prasad Saxena in O.S.No. 77-A of 1976, date October 11, 1976. So he filed civil suit No. 121-A of 1984 on the plea that both the respondents had played fraud upon him and it was a collusive decree a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
