Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Case Number
Attorney(S)
Judges
Acts
  • S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act

    Ram Sarup v. Rukmin Kuar

    Sir W. Comer Petheram, C.J:— I think that this appeal must be dismissed with costs. The action was brought to set aside a decree which was passed in a Court of competent jurisdiction, and which could have been appealed, and was subject to be set aside if wrong. If the decree in the first suit was wrong, it was one that was subject to appeal as between the parties. If the decree was between other parties, and was obtained by fraud, that fraud may be subject of a suit when it has affected the rights of persons other than the parties to the fraudulent decree. I cannot see how a suit of this kind will lie. S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act does not authorize it, nor does any other law or rule.

    The learned Judge was right in deciding as he did, and this appeal must be dismissed with costs.

    Straight, J.:— I concur in the order of the learned C.J that this appeal must be dismissed with costs.

    Appeal dismissed.

    Use AI to get other relevant cases.

    Comments

    Ram Sarup v. Rukmin Kuar
    (Jul 8, 1885)