whether the suit filed by the father of the appellants in respect of property owned by appellants Nos.1 and 2 could be held to be not maintainable even when the appellants were added as plaintiffs as heirs of their father who died during pendency of the suit and whether description of the appellants who are owners as heirs instead of owners in their own right will be a case of mere "error, defect or irregularity" not affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the Court which did not affect the maintainability of the suit. =Thus on admitted facts, only defect pointed out is of formal nature in description without, in any manner, affecting the merits or the jurisdiction of the Court. Such irregularity could have been corrected by the Court under Order 1 Rule 10 and can be corrected even at this stage unless the defendant is in any manner prejudiced. No principle or authority has been brought to our notice which could affect the maintainability of the suit merely on account of wrong description which did not in any manner cause prejudice to the defendant, particularly when no such objection is shown to have been raised before the trial Court. 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

whether  the  suit  filed  by  the
father of the appellants in respect of property owned  by  appellants  Nos.1
and 2 could be held to be not maintainable even  when  the  appellants  were
added as plaintiffs as heirs of their father who  died  during  pendency  of
the suit and 
whether description of the appellants who are owners  as  heirs
instead of owners in their own right  will be a case of mere "error, defect or irregularity" not affecting the merits or jurisdiction of the Court which did not affect the maintainability
of the suit. =
Thus on  admitted
facts, only defect pointed out is of formal nature in  description  without,
in any manner, affecting the merits or the jurisdiction of the Court.   Such
irregularity could have been corrected by the Court under Order  1  Rule  10
and can be corrected even at this stage  unless  the  defendant  is  in  any
manner prejudiced.  No principle  or  authority  has  been  brought  to  our
notice which could affect the maintainability of the suit merely on  account
of wrong description which did not in any  manner  cause  prejudice  to  the
defendant, particularly when no such objection is shown to have been  raised
before the trial Court. 2015 S.C. MSKLAWREPORTS

Rajkumar is the owner. Rajkumar bequeathed property to the sons of his brother by name Shiva Kumar Dubey. after the death of Rajkumar , his brother filed suit for eviction against the tenant. Pending suit plaintiff died.
His sons and widow were brought on record as legal heirs of plaintiff. 
The sons of plaintiff having a WILL in their favour not added as owners of the property nor they have filed suit for eviction.
The very eviction suit by plaintiff -  as legal heir of his brother Rajkumar.
The decree passed infavour of the plaintiff as legal heirs but not as owners - is a mere error or curable ?

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.20 of C.P.C - Territorial Jurisdiction - suit for recovery of money based on Contract - As per the admitted plaint averments, the office of the defendants is located in Pargi, the offer made by the petitioner was accepted at Pargi, the contract was entered between the petitioner and the respondents at Pargi and the same was executed within the jurisdiction of the Court at Pargi.- Plaint returned with objection - as an after thought added the acceptance of contract was received at Malkajgiri - Trail court returned the plaint to file in proper court - Revision - Their Lordships held that if filing of suit is based on making of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where the offer is accepted and if the suit is based on termination of a contract, the cause of action arises at the place where such termination order is received. Admittedly, the suit is based on making of a contract and not on termination of the contract.- dismissed the revision - 2015 Telangana & A.P. msklawreports

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS