Back
R.D.DHANUKA, SUNIL K.KOTWAL
Abeda Bano – Appellant
Versus
Jamshid Amir Ali Khan – Respondent
R.D. Dhanuka J.
1. By this First Appeal, the appellants (original plaintiffs) have challenged the impugned order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, dated 10th December, 2003 below Exhibit No.1 and also challenged the composite order passed below Exhibit Nos. 260 and 268, in Special Civil Suit No. 219 of 1996 dated 10.12.2003 by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur.
2. By the said order dated 10th December, 2003, the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Latur, had allowed the application filed by some of the defendants below Exhibit No.1 dismissing the entire suit as abated in view of the plaintiffs' failure to bring on record the legal representative of the alienees and in view of the fact that the suit had also abated against some of the alienees. The learned Trial Judge also dismissed the application filed by the plaintiffs for deletion of the name of the alienees i.e. defendant No.16 to defendant No. 26 271(B). Some of the relevant facts for deciding this appeal and the civil applications are as under:
3. The parties described in this appeal are described as per their status in the trial Court proceeding.
4. Mr. Hamid Ali Khan had two wi
Rukmani Ammal VS Jagdeesa Gounder - 2005 8 Supreme 343: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment (e.g., followed, overruled). The entry describes only an "Important point" on mortgagee possession and adverse possession.
Vithal Bapu Mane VS Balasaheb Sidhu Masal - 2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 78: No treatment indicators. Describes an "Important Point" on adoptive son's rights in coparcenary property.
Assiz VS Chithamma - 1953 0 Supreme(Ker) 153: No treatment indicators. States a rule on void transactions binding minors without de jure guardian representation.
Bakshish Singh VS Arjan Singh - 1996 3 Supreme 118: No treatment indicators. Discusses indivisible decrees and inconsistent outcomes.
Haji Mohamed Abdullah VS C. Abdul Rahiman and others - 1963 0 Supreme(Mad) 223: No treatment indicators. Addresses limits of coparcenary law under Hindu law for Muhammadan heirs.
Beharilal VS Bhuri Devi - 1997 5 Supreme 568: No treatment indicators. Rules on validity of land allotment despite non-compliance with Article 299(1).
Shahazada Bi VS Halimabi (Since Dead) By Her Lrs. - 2004 6 Supreme 47: No treatment indicators. Covers abatement of suit regarding deceased co-defendant's interest only.
Kanakarathanammal VS V. S. Loganatha Mudaliar - 1963 0 Supreme(SC) 305: No treatment indicators. Interprets Section 10(2)(b) of Mysore Hindu Women's Rights Act, 1933.
Budh Ram VS Bansi - 2010 6 Supreme 168: No treatment indicators, though it references "settled law" on abatement depending on facts; this does not indicate treatment of this specific case.
Rajkumar Gurawara (Dead) Thr. L. Rs. VS M/s S. K. Sarwagi & Co. Pvt. Ltd. - 2008 4 Supreme 435: States "It is settled law" on conditions for denying amendment applications; this reflects the law's status but provides no treatment indicator for this case itself.
Badni VS Siri Chand - 1999 2 Supreme 104: Begins with "Important point" and describes abatement of multiple appeals due to common issues; no treatment keywords.
Waman s/o Nago Choudhari VS Mahadu Nago - 2010 0 Supreme(Bom) 585: Describes "The main legal point established" on impleading third parties in partnership disputes; no treatment indicators.
Babu Sukhram Singh VS Ram Dular Singhs - 1971 0 Supreme(SC) 549: No treatment indicators. States rule on abatement under Order XXII, Rule 4 CPC for failure to substitute legal representatives.
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
