Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.87 seconds)
Documents citing Dhulipalla Brahamaramba vs Dhulipalla Seetharamayya And Ors. on 12 December, 1946

Periyasami Padayachi And Anr. vs Minor Ulaganathan By Next Friend ... on 21 April, 1948

I may further point out that in Brahamaramba v. Seetharamayya (1947) 1 M.L.J. 119 it was held that the petitioner was entitled in law to be brought on record as the legal representative of the deceased applicant for leave to sue in forma pauperis and to continue the suit on payment of the requisite court-fee, a clear distinction being made between the application which abated on the death of the applicant and the plaint that was filed with it with regard to which it was held that the legal representative could continue the proceeding on payment of the court-fee. This was done on the basis that the application for leave to sue in forma pauperis embodied a plaint.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

K. Balakumar vs M.S. Jayaprakash And 3 Ors. on 9 October, 1995

Another decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant namely Brahamaramba v. Seetharamayya (1947 (I) Madras Law Journal 119) also is not a decision on the point. In that case, one Dhulipala Venkata Subba Rao and his minor brothers filed the application seeking permission to sue in forma pauperis and before the petition came up for enquiry, the petitioner Dhulipala Venkata Subba Rao died and his mother got impleaded as a legal heir of the said Venkata Subba Rao. In that case, the mother expressed her willingness to pay court fee. The learned Judges have referred to series of decisions in this case and in those cases, the persons who were impleaded as the legal representatives, were directed to pay court fee. Even though in that Bench decision Venkata Subba Rao sought for permission to sue in forma pauperis, his mother, who continued the petition subsequently, could have contended that she was not liable to pay court fee as her son, who filed the petition, was an indigent person if the law is to be taken that the legal heir need not prove his indigency. On the other hand, the legal heir offered to pay the court fee in that case because she was not an indigent person though her son claimed to be an indigent person, and sought permission to exempt him from the payment of the court fee.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K. Balakumar vs M.S. Jayaprakash And Ors. on 9 October, 1995

Another decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellant namely Brahamaramba v. Seetharamayya (1947) 1 M.L.J. 119, also is not a decision on the point. In that case, one Dhulipala Venkata Subba Rao and his minor brothers filed the application seeking permission to sue in forma pauperis and before the petition came up for enquiry, the petitioner Dhulipala Venkata Subba Rao died and his mother got impleaded as a legal heir of the said Venkata Subba Rao. In that case, the mother expressed her willingness to pay court-fee. The learned Judges have referred to series of decisions in this case and in those cases, the persons, who were impleaded as the legal representatives were directed to pay court-fee. Even though in that Bench decision Venkata Subba Rao sought for permission to sue in forma pauperis, his mother, who continued the petition subsequently, could have contended that she was not liable to pay court-fee as her son, who filed the petition, was an indigent person if the law is to be taken that the legal heir need not prove his indigency. On the other hand, the legal heir offered to pay the court-fee in that case because she was not an indigent person though her son claimed to be an indigent person, and sought permission to exempt him from the payment of the court-fee.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Chimanilal Bhogilal Pantene And Anr. vs Chandanben Shah And Ors. on 11 August, 1964

(10) Mr.Sheth also relied on certain decisions like Brahamaramba v. Seetharamayya, AIR 1947 Mad 405, Salem B.S.R.V. Motors (P) Ltd. v. S.S.Krishna Sastry, AIR 1962 Mys.47, Satish Chandra v. Phani Bhushan De, AIR 1952 Cal 696, Mt. Annapurna Bai v. Balaji Maroti, AIR 1946 Nag 320 and certain other authorities where it was held that the legal representatives could continue the application filed by the deceased in forma pauperis only on payment of the necessary court-fee or on the proof that they were themselves paupers. But these decisions have not considered the question of a dual personality of the same person and how far the Code has included juridical person in its scope and that is why the earlier decisions which support the other view were not referred to in these decisions.
Gujarat High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

V. Sreedharan vs T.T. Nanu And Anr. on 5 March, 1987

See also Chidambaram v. Nataraja Mudaliar, AIR 1939 Mad 80 Dhulipalla Brahamaramba v. Hulipalla Seetharamayya, AIR 1947 Mad 405, Jagadiswari Debi v. Tinkari Bibi, AIR 1936 Cal 28, Bank of Bihar Limited v. Ramachanderji Maharaj, AIR 1929 Pat 637, Totaram Ichharam Wani v. Dattu Mangu Wani, AIR 1943 Bom 143, Mahanath Jaikishun Dass v. Ram Narain Das, AIR 1939 Pat 385, and Raj Narain Sexana v. Bhim Sen, AIR 1966 All 84 (FB).
Kerala High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1   2 Next