Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Mallapragadu and anr. Vs. Lingam Veera Raghava Row and ors.

Mallapragadu and anr. vs Lingam Veera Raghava Row and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Oct 05, 1909
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/778014

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Chennai
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

-

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Mallapragadu and anr.

Respondent

Lingam Veera Raghava Row and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred
Bcdabai v. Ganesh I.L.R.
Reported In
(1910)20MLJ398

Excerpt

- order1. this is an application to the court to declare his appeal abated so far as the 2nd defendant (appellant) is concerned on the ground that he died in july 1908 and that in september his father and brothers were brought on as his legal representatives, whereas his legal representative was his mother who has not been brought on. we are unable to accept this contention. the application appears to have been made bona fide by the 3rd defendant who was the father of the deceased 2nd defendant after consulting his vakil and was granted by the court. in these circumstances we think it cannot be said that there was 'no application made to the court, within the meaning of section 366, old civil procedure code or order 22, rule 3, sub-rule (1)of the new code, so as to cause the suit to abate. this was laid down by this court in musal reddi v. ramayya i.l.r. (1899) m. 125. in that case some only of the legal representatives had been brought on the record instead of as here the wrong legal representatives, but this, we think, makes no difference. the observations of the learned judges as to the hardships which would arise from the other construction are fully applicable to the case where a wrong legal representative has been brought on bona fide. this also appears to have been the view taken by this court in kadirmohideen marakkayar v. muthukristna aiyar i.l.r. 26 m. 230. see also bcdabai v. ganesh i.l.r. (1902) b. 162 the petition is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. This is an application to the Court to declare his appeal abated so far as the 2nd defendant (appellant) is concerned on the ground that he died in July 1908 and that in September his father and brothers were brought on as his legal representatives, whereas his legal representative was his mother who has not been brought on. We are unable to accept this Contention. The application appears to have been made bona fide by the 3rd defendant who was the father of the deceased 2nd defendant after consulting his vakil and was granted by the Court. In these circumstances we think it cannot be said that there was 'no application made to the Court, within the meaning of Section 366, Old Civil Procedure Code or Order 22, Rule 3, Sub-rule (1)of the New Code, so as to cause the suit to abate. This was laid down by this Court in Musal Reddi v. Ramayya I.L.R. (1899) M. 125. In that case some only of the legal representatives had been brought on the record instead of as here the wrong legal representatives, but this, we think, makes no difference. The observations of the learned Judges as to the hardships which would arise from the other construction are fully applicable to the case where a wrong legal representative has been brought on bona fide. This also appears to have been the view taken by this Court in KadirMohideen Marakkayar v. Muthukristna Aiyar I.L.R. 26 M. 230. See also Bcdabai v. Ganesh I.L.R. (1902) B. 162 The petition is dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial