Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.58 seconds)
Documents citing Gopal Singh And Others vs Ujagar Singh And Others on 2 April, 1954

Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955

Indeed,the correctness of this paragraph was not disputed before this Court in Gopal Singh v. Ujagar Singh(1). The general custom of the Punjab being that a daughter excludes the collaterals from succession to the selfacquired property of her father the initial onus, there- fore, must, on principle, be on the collaterals to show that the general custom in favour of the daughter's succession to the self-acquired property of her father has been varied by a special local custom excluding the daughter which is binding on the parties. Indeed, it has been so held by the Judicial Committee in Mst.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Application Of Limitation Provision ... vs Ds Fy on 20 January, 2005

He relied on Bhyah Ram Singh Vs. Bhyah Ujagar Singh, 13 MIA 373, PC which ruled firmly, where a text of Hindu Law is directly on a point, nothing from any foreign source should be 2542 introduced into it, nor should Court interpret the text by application to the language of strained analogies. 2588. It is pointed out that at pages 67 to 69 of Mulla's "Principles of Hindu Law" that in a very early decision (4 MIA 97-98) Privy Council conceded that 'it is quite impossible for us to feel any confidence in our opinion..........founded upon authorities (Hindu Dharmashastras) to which we have access only through translations, and when the doctrines themselves, and the reasons by which they are supported or impugned, are drawn from religious traditions, ancient usages and more modern habits of Hindoos, with which we cannot be familiar".
Allahabad High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Krishna Kumari vs Ram Singh (Through L.Rs) & Anr. on 20 August, 2010

11. This document was jointly executed by Ram Singh and Girwar Singh in favour of Roshan Lal Vohra on 12.3.1975. Girwar Singh had expired on 23.8.1979. The present suit had been filed in the year 1980 on which date admittedly Girwar Singh was not alive. The impugned judgment had returned a finding that the death of Girwar Singh had not taken away the life of this document. The co-executant Ram Singh was still alive and the suit filed by him was maintainable. This issue has been discussed in detail while disposing of issue no.2. The appellate court had relied upon a judgment of the Nagpur Bench reported as Agarwal Jorawarmal & Anr. vs. Kasan & Anr. AIR 1937 Nagpur 314; a judgment of the Calcutta Bench reported as Mohindra Lal R.S.A.No.99/1986 Page 8 of 13 Chatterjee vs. Hari Pada Oase & Ors. AIR 1936 Calcutta 650; the judgment of the Punjab Bench reported as Gopal Singh vs. Mehnge Singh 1968 Vol.70 PLR 515 as also another judgment of the Full Bench of Punjab and Haryana reported as Ajmer Singh (deceased by LRs) vs. Shamsher Singh & Ors. reported in AIR 1984 Punjab & Haryana 58 to draw a finding that a power of attorney executed by the surviving executant did not terminate on the death of the other; Ex.PW-1/1 dated 12.3.1975 was thus a valid and alive document. Relevant extract of this finding by the first appellate court is contained in para 11 and reads as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - I Kaur - Full Document
1   2 Next