TaxTMI Login
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →Just a moment...
AI OCR ✕Convert scanned orders, printed notices, PDFs and images into clean, searchable, editable text within seconds. Starting at 2 Credits/page
Try Now →
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether, in the objection raised by an alleged legal heir disputing the binding effect of an eviction decree, the matter could be finally decided without evidence when questions of parentage, representation and collusion were in dispute; (ii) Whether the legal heirs who were parties to the eviction proceedings sufficiently represented the remaining heirs so as to bind them by the decree.
Issue (i): Whether, in the objection raised by an alleged legal heir disputing the binding effect of an eviction decree, the matter could be finally decided without evidence when questions of parentage, representation and collusion were in dispute.
Analysis: Where the objector's status as a heir and the allegation of collusion between the landlord and the impleaded heirs were disputed, the issue could not be resolved merely on assertions. The question whether a non-impleaded person was represented in the earlier litigation depends on the facts of the particular case and, where necessary, must be determined on evidence. A summary rejection was therefore unwarranted when the executing court had rightly directed trial of the disputed questions.
Conclusion: The objection could not be finally dismissed without evidence; the matter had to be remitted for decision after allowing the parties to lead evidence.
Issue (ii): Whether the legal heirs who were parties to the eviction proceedings sufficiently represented the remaining heirs so as to bind them by the decree.
Analysis: The principle of representation is recognised in civil procedure, but it operates only where the interested person's case was genuinely and bona fide represented. If the facts show adequate representation and no real conflict of interest or mala fide neglect, the decree binds the non-impleaded heir as well. On the facts of the connected appeal, the appellants had been given opportunity to adduce evidence but did not avail it, and the record supported the conclusion that the named heirs adequately represented the family interest.
Conclusion: The decree was binding on the non-impleaded heirs, and their challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The common judgment resulted in partial relief: one appeal succeeded and was remitted for fresh decision after evidence, while the other was rejected on the footing of effective representation by the impleaded heirs.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
