TIKA RAM Vs. DAULAT RAM
LAWS(ALL)-2013-4-175
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Decided on
April 04,2013
TIKA RAM
Appellant
VERSUS
DAULAT RAM
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
SRIKANT VS. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]RANI HEMANT KUMARI VS. MAHARAJA JAGADHINDRA NATH [REFERRED TO]
CONSTANTINE LINE VS. I S CORPN [REFERRED TO]
INDAR DATT VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
KALI CHARAN MUKERJI VS. EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
MT. TITLI VS. ALFRED ROBERT JONES [REFERRED TO]
PERUMAL MUDALIAR VS. SOUTH INDIAN RAILWAY COMPANY LTD [REFERRED TO]
BISHUNDEO NARAIN VS. SEOGENI RAI [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHANDRA VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
HAJI MOHAMMAD EKRAMUL HAQ VS. STATE OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
ISHWARI PRASAD MISRA VS. MOHAMMAD ISA [REFERRED TO]
A RAGHAVAMMA VS. A CHENCHAMMA [REFERRED TO]
FAKHRUDDIN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MAGAN BIHARI LAL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION VS. PALI RAM [REFERRED TO]
MURARI LAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
MURARI LAL VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
FOREST RANGE OFFICER KHUSHBOO ENTERPRISES VS. P MOHAMMAD ALI:FOREST RANGE OFFICER [REFERRED TO]
S V R MUDALIAR OTHERS VS. RAJABU F BUHARI MRS [REFERRED TO]
GULZAR ALI RAJ MOHAMMAD VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. JAI LAL [REFERRED TO]
LALIT POPLI VS. CANARA BANK [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA MOHAN KUL NANI CHARAN KUL VS. PRATIMA MAITY [REFERRED TO]
R V E VENKATACHALA GOUNDER VS. ARULMIGU VISWESARASWAMI AND V P TEMPLE [REFERRED TO]
THIRUVENGADA PILLAI VS. NAVANEETHAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
K LAXMANAN VS. KKAYIL PADMINI [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL VS. REGENCY HOSPITAL LTD [REFERRED TO]
MUSHEER KHAN ALIAS BADSHAH KHAN VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
DOODHNATH VS. LAKHAN [REFERRED TO]
SUDHINDRA NATH DUTT VS. KING [REFERRED TO]
STATE VS. KANHU CHARAN BARIK [REFERRED TO]
GOVT OF W B VS. NITYA GOPAL BASAK [REFERRED TO]
PALANISWAMY VAIYAPURI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]
SONA DEVI VS. NAGINA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JAIDEO YADAV VS. RAGHUNATH YADAV [REFERRED TO]
SITA NATH BASAK VS. MOHINI MOHAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JOSEPH JOHN PETER SANDY VS. VERONICA THOMAS RAJKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
PARMANAND VS. STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-189] [REFERRED TO]PARMANAND VS. STATE OF U P & ANOTHER [LAWS(ALL)-2016-1-333] [REFERRED]
SARDAR PURAN SINGH VS. MADHUR MOHINI AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2018-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM BAHADUR SINGH VS. KAULA DEVI [LAWS(ALL)-2018-10-234] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Heard Sri M.A.Qadeer, Senior Advocate, assisted by Sri Mohd. Waris, Advocate for defendants-appellants and Sri Niraj Agarwal, Advocate for the plaintiff-respondent no.1.
(2.)The defendants-respondents 2, 4 and 5 have died and since their heirs or legal representatives were not brought on record, appeal stood abated against them pursuant to this Court's order dated 29th April, 2010. The entire appeal had not abated for the reason that decree holder plaintiff-respondent no.1 is there and cause of action therefore, continues to survive.
(3.)This is defendants' appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"). After hearing this appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11 CPC, this Court formulated following two substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether alleged admission by a party is to be taken as a whole?
(ii) Whether Rules regarding Pardanashi lady would apply equally to a ignorant and illiterate woman though she may not be a Pardanashi?
(2.)The defendants-respondents 2, 4 and 5 have died and since their heirs or legal representatives were not brought on record, appeal stood abated against them pursuant to this Court's order dated 29th April, 2010. The entire appeal had not abated for the reason that decree holder plaintiff-respondent no.1 is there and cause of action therefore, continues to survive.
(3.)This is defendants' appeal under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC"). After hearing this appeal under Order XLI, Rule 11 CPC, this Court formulated following two substantial questions of law:
(i) Whether alleged admission by a party is to be taken as a whole?
(ii) Whether Rules regarding Pardanashi lady would apply equally to a ignorant and illiterate woman though she may not be a Pardanashi?
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.