High Courts(1924) 07 MAD CK 0023

Hazarat Kibulai Sayyed Gulam Gouse Sha Sahib Kadiri vs Dost Mohammad Khan Sahib (dead) and Another

Madras High Court · Decided on 9 July 1924 · Citation: 85 Ind. Cas. 666 : (1924) 20 LW 882 : (1924) 47 MLJ 745

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

18 paragraphs · 364 words
1.

Ponniatha Kathoot Parameswaram Munpu and Others Vs. Moothedath Mallisseri Illath Narayanan Nambudri and Another, is a direct authority

for the view that a suit once instituted by two or more plaintiffs duly authorised u/s 92, Civil Procedure Code, does not abate in consequence of

one of the plaintiffs dying during the continuance of the suit.

2.

It seems to us that the case of one of two or more appellants dying after the filing of an appeal against a decree in a suit of the nature referred to

in Section 92 is an a fortiori case of abatement not resulting from the death of a party.

3.

The observations in Chhabile Ram v. Durga Prasad ILR (1915) All 296 to the effect that it is necessary that there should be two persons

interested in the trust and holding the Advocate-General''s sanction for carrying on the litigation have not been accepted by the Bench which

decided the case in Ponniatha Kathoot Parameswaram Munpu and Others Vs. Moothedath Mallisseri Illath Narayanan Nambudri and Another,

and in view of the strict interpretation which has been put upon the expression "" instituted "" by Sir Lawrence Jenkins in Darves Haji Muhamad v.

Jainudin ILR (1906) B 603 , we do not think that they should be followed. Alagappa v. Muthiah ILR (1917) M 237 33 MLJ 173 is an additional

authority for the correctness of the view taken by this Court in Ponniatha Kathoot Parameswaram Munpu and Others Vs. Moothedath Mallisseri

Illath Narayanan Nambudri and Another, , which we have decided to follow (vide the judgment of Sadasiva Aiyar, J., at pages 239-240). The

present application does not come within the scope of Order 22, Rule 3 Ponniatha Kathoot Parameswaram Munpu and Others Vs. Moothedath

Mallisseri Illath Narayanan Nambudri and Another, , Civil Procedure Code, which deals only with applications made by legal representatives of

deceased plaintiffs. Rule 3 ILR (1915) All 296 deals only with the result of such applications not being made i within the time limited by law on the

interest of the deceased plaintiff.

4.

This application is dismissed with costs.

5.

The regular appeal will be posted for hearing in due course.