Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Raja Bahadur Raja Brij Narain Rai vs Mangla Prasad Rai And Ors. on 16 April, 1920

Ranjit Singh vs Ramman Singh And Anr. on 2 January, 1925

21 re-affirmed recently in the case of Brij Narain Rai v. Mangla Prasad A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 50, the son could not succeed, in this suit without proving that the debt in respect of which a decree was obtained and the joint family property brought to sale had been incurred by his father for what the Hindu Law would call an immoral purpose. The Court of first instance seems to have hold on the evidence that the father had borrowed this money for an immoral purpose; but the learned Subordinate Judge went on to hold that the auction-purchaser defendant had taken the property in good faith for valuable consideration and without any knowledge of the immoral taint attaching to the father's transaction. On the ground the trial Court passed a decree for partition, but in a form which virtually negatived the claim of the plaintiff to have the sale sot aside. The learned District Judge in appeal re-considered the evidence regarding the immoral nature of the debt. It has been one of the principal matters of controversy in this Court as to what the learned District Judge intended to find, and actually did find, on this point. At the end of its judgment, however, the lower appellate Court definitely agrees with the trial Court that the auction-purchaser had no notice of the immoral nature of the debt, if it was in fact immoral, and had acted in good faith. On this express ground the learned District Judge dismissed the appeal before him and affirmed the decision of the trial Court. There was a second appeal which came before a single Judge of this Court for disposal, and the learned Judge of this Court has based his decision wholly upon the view taken by him as to the meaning and effect of the judgment recorded by the lower appellate Court. We do not think it necessary to go into detail as to the precise circumstances of the case. There was evidence produced which, if believed, would warrant a finding that this debt bad been incurred by a Hindu father for immoral purposes; that is to say, in furtherance of immoral relations which he had contracted with a woman who was an actress and a courtesan. The learned District Judge says that the oral evidence on this point had not greatly commended itself even to the opinion of the trial Court, and that, in his opinion, it was definitely worthless. He then goes on to remark that the finding of the trial Court as to the immoral nature of the debt was based mainly on the evidence of the plaintiff's father. He adds the following words:
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiva Nath Prasad vs Tulshi Ram on 20 May, 1925

3. It is lastly contended that the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Brij Narain Rai v. Mangla Prasad Rai 77 Ind. Cas. 689 : 21 A.L.J. 934 : 46 M.L.J. 23 : 5 P.L.J. 1 : 28 C.W.N. 253 : (1924) A.I.R. (P.C.) 50 : (1924) M.W.N. 68 : 19 L.W. 72 : 2 Pat. L.R. 41 : 10 O. & A.L.R. 82 : 33 M.L.T. 457 : 46 A. 95, 26 Bom. L.B. 500 : 11 0.L.J. 107 : 511. A. 129 : 1 O.W.N. 48 : 41 C.L.J. 232 (P.C.). conclude this point and make the entire estate free from liability in case the debt is contracted for immorality. We think that the propositions laid down by their Lordships do not cover the point now before us. The question whether the interest of one coparcener can be attached and sold in execution of a decree against him was not a matter before their Lordships. The previous cases referred to above, therefore, still hold good. We are of opinion that this appeal has no force. It is accordingly dismissed with costs including fees on the higher scale.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiva Nath Prasad vs Tulsi Ram on 20 May, 1925

3. It is lastly contended that the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Brij Narayan Rai v. Mangla Prasad Rai A.I.R. 1924 P.C. 50 conclude this point and make the entire estate free from liability in case the debt is contracted for immorality. We think that the propositions laid down by their Lordships do not cover the point now before us. The question whether the interest of one co-parcener can be attached and sold in execution of a decree against him was not a matter before their Lordships. The previous cases referred to above therefore still hold good. We are of opinion that this appeal has no force It is accordingly dismissed with costs including fees.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Raghunath Prashad Singh vs Basdeo Parsad Singh on 2 March, 1925

2. With regard to the first of these points, it now appears to be settled Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad Rai 77 Ind. Cas. 689 : 46 A. 95 : 21 A.L.J. 934 : 46 M.L.J. 23 : 5 P..L.T. 1 : 28 C.W.N. 253 : (1924) M.W.N. 68 : 19 L.W. 72 : 2 Pat. L.R. 41 : 10 O. A.L.R. 82 : (1921) A.I.R. (P.C.) 59 : 33 M.L.T. 457 : 26 Bom. L.R. 500 : 11 O.L.J. 107 : 51 I.A. 129 : 1 O.W.N. 48 : 44 C.L.J. 232 (P.C.) that the sons are under a pious obligation to pay their father's debt even in his lifetime. But it is contended that a partition of the joint family property having taken place, there is no longer any presumption that the branch to which Sham Narain and his three sons belong has continued to remain joint. That is perfectly true. There is no presumption of jointness and it is a question of fact whether Sham Narain and his three sons have remained joint. The burden of proof is on those who allege jointness and the Subordinate Judge has found that the respondent has discharged it. The appellant Raghunath Prasad gave evidence before the Subordinate Judge that he was joint with his father. He has been believed and there is no satisfactory evidence to the contrary. It has not been proved that Sham Narain was joint in. food only and not in property with his sons.
Patna High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1