SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2006 Supreme(Del) 709

SANJIV KHANNA
DALJIT SINGH – Appellant
Versus
YOGESHWAR PRASAD – Respondent


SANJIV KHANNA, J.

( 1 ) BY this Order, I propose to dispose of the application under Order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as the Code, for short) filed by the appellant for bringing on record the legal representatives of the respondent.

( 2 ) THE legal representatives of the respondent have opposed the said application on the ground that the right to sue does not survive after death of the respondent. An injunction, it was stated, does not run with the land but acts only in personam or against a person. Reliance in this regard was placed on shankara Lingappa versus Nanje Gowda reported in AIR 1981 Kar 78 and Tej Kumar jain versus Purshottam reported in AIR 1981 MP 55. It was further submitted that the original suit as filed was not based upon a contract between the appellant and the respondent but based upon "torts" and on the death of the respondent the said suit, thereafter made subject matter of an appeal abated. Reliance in this regard was placed upon the commentaries of Winfield and zolowicz on "torts", Ratanlal and Dhirajlal on "law of Torts" and judgments in m. Veerappa versus Evelyn Sequeira and others reported in AIR 1988 SC 506,







































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top