Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Bhala Nahana vs Parbhu Hari on 7 June, 1877

Sheo Ram Pande And Ors. vs Sheo Ratan Pande And Anr. on 15 April, 1921

See Bhala Nahana v. Parbhu Hari 2 B. 67 at p. 73 : 2 Ind. Jur. 109 : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 472. The passage runs thus: "The debts contrasted by the husband shall be discharged by the widow, if sonless, or if her husband has enjoined her to do sO on his death-bed, or if she inherits the estate; for whosoever takes the estate must pay the debts with which it is incumbered." Those cases are no authority for the proposition put forward before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In the present case the estate was not inaumbered with the debt of the husband. It was only the pious duty of the son to pay the debts of his father. The property was in no way incumbered. So that even relying on this text of Narada the appellant must fail. The appeal fails on other grounds also. We think the view taken by the Court below was right. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs including in this Court fees on the higher scale.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Sheo Ratan Pande vs Sheo Ram Pande And Lachminia Pandain on 15 April, 1921

See Bhala Nahana v. Prabhu Hari (1877) I.L.R. 2 Bom. 67. The passage (at page 73) runs thus: "The debts contracted by the husband shall be discharged by the widow, if sonless, or if her bus baud has enjoined her to do so on his deathbed, or if she inherits the estate; for, whosoever takes the estate must pay the debts with which it is encumbered." Those cases are no authority for the proposition put forward before us by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In the present case the estate was not encumbered with the debt of the husband. It was only the pious duty of the son to pay the debts of his father. The property was in no way encumbered. So that, even relying on this text of Narad the appellant must fail. The appeal fails on other grounds also. We think the view taken by the court below was right. We accordingly dismiss this appeal with costs.
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asita Mohan Ghose Moulik vs Nerode Mohan Ghose Moulik on 8 May, 1916

In Bhala Nahana v. Parbhu Hari 2 B. 67 it was held that, where a person by an express promise to settle his property upon the boy induced his parents to give him in adoption, but died without having executed a settlement, the equity to compel the heir and legal representative of the adoptive father specifically to perform his contract survived, and that the property in the hands of the widow, the heir-in-law in that case, was bound by that contract.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1