<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2008 (5) TMI 752 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310022</link>
    <description>Under Section 2(11) CPC and Order 22 Rules 4, 5 and 11, a deceased respondent&#039;s estate must be properly represented before an appeal is heard when the right to sue survives. The Court noted that legal representatives, including an intermeddler, must be determined and brought on record first, and that the inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 is confined to representation in that proceeding and does not decide title to the estate. As the deceased respondent&#039;s estate remained unrepresented when the appeal was decided, the hearing was not valid in law and the judgment could not displace the trial court decree. The matter was restored for fresh decision after impleadment of the proper legal representatives.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Tue, 03 Oct 2023 17:42:48 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=727883" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2008 (5) TMI 752 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310022</link>
      <description>Under Section 2(11) CPC and Order 22 Rules 4, 5 and 11, a deceased respondent&#039;s estate must be properly represented before an appeal is heard when the right to sue survives. The Court noted that legal representatives, including an intermeddler, must be determined and brought on record first, and that the inquiry under Order 22 Rule 5 is confined to representation in that proceeding and does not decide title to the estate. As the deceased respondent&#039;s estate remained unrepresented when the appeal was decided, the hearing was not valid in law and the judgment could not displace the trial court decree. The matter was restored for fresh decision after impleadment of the proper legal representatives.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 05 May 2008 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=310022</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>