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

1974 Supreme(P&H) 84

D.K.MAHAJAN, R.S.NARULA, PRITAM SINGH PATTAR
Amrik Singh – Appellant
Versus
Karnail Singh – Respondent


Judgment

D.K.Mahajan, J.

1. The question which has necessitated this case to be heard by a larger Bench is, whether non-compliance with the provisions of Order 32, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure in every case renders the decree a nullity ?

2. The Courts below decreed the plaintiff s suit. This decree was passed in a suit for possession by pre-emption filed by Karnail Singh plaintiff. The sale sought to be pre-empted was made by Asa Singh, grandfather of the plaintiff. The vendees, defendants 1 to 4, are Amrik Singh and three others. They are real brothers. Defendants 3 and 4, Amrik Singh and Vir Singh are minors. In the plaint the minors were sued through their real brother Satnam Singh as their guardian. An application was made under Order 32, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to the effect that Satnam Singh, defendant No. 1, the eldest brother of the minors, be appointed their guardian. It was also mentioned that Ajit Singh brother, Mangal Singh father, Smt. Tirath Kaur mother and an officer of the Court were fit to be appointed as guardian of the minors. It was stated that defendant No. 1 had no interest adverse to the minors; and in case defendant No. 1 refuses to act as th















































































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