Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (1.25 seconds)
Documents citing Srimati Ambalika Dasi And Ors. vs Srimati Arpana Dasi And Ors. on 6 February, 1918

Debendra Lal Khan vs Pitambar Bera on 26 May, 1926

In the case of Ambalika Dasi v. Arpana Dasi [1918] 45 Cal. 835 it was held that even if a particular rule of succession has been actually followed in a family for a series of years, it cannot be treated as binding upon the family unless it had ripened into a family custom; that it must be shown that the custom had existed from time immemorial and where the custom set up is peculiar only to a single family this rule is more strictly enforced than ever.
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Parshotam Ganpat Gujar vs Venichand Ganpat Gujar on 1 September, 1920

A similar rule was applied to Hindu usages by Gray, C.J. in a judgment delivered so long ago aa 1831, a quotation from which is given in Roy's Customs and Customary Law in British India at pages 27 and 28, and which is referred to in Ambaliku Dasi v. Aparna Dasi (1918) I.L.R. 45 Cal. 835, 858. In that case he held that it was sufficient in Calcutta to go back to 1773, and that "a usage for twenty years may raise a presumption, in the absence of direct evidence, of a usage existing beyond the period of legal memory." Accordingly and in view of the strong antecedent probability in favour of the adoption of such a custom by Jains for reasons already given, I think, a presumption arises in favour of the antiquity of a custom, of which instances extending over a period of some thirty years are forthcoming, I agree, therefore, with the learned Chief Justice in holding that there is no sufficient ground for our differing from the view taken by the two lower Courts that the adoption of the defendant was valid. In view, however, of the limited nature of the evidence adduced in the present case, I also agree that the issue which was framed in this Court's interlocutory judgment of 18th November 1918, which is unnecessarily wide for the purpose of deciding this case, cannot be answered entirely in the affirmative. But as the evidence adduced in the present case was sufficient as between the patties to the suit to entitle the Courts below to dismiss the plaintiff's suit, I concur in dismissing the appeal with costs.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Parshottam Ganpat Gujar Minor By His ... vs Venichand Ganpat Gujar on 1 September, 1920

J. in a judgment delivered so long ago as 1831, a quotation from which is given in Hoy's Customs and Customary Law in British India at pages 27 and 28, and which is referred to in Ambalika Dasi v. Aparna Dasi (1918) 45 Cal. 835 at p. 858. In that case he held that it was sufficient in Calcutta to go back to 1773, and that "a-usage for twenty years may raise a presumption, in the absence of direct evidence of a usage, existing beyond the period of legal memory." Accordingly and in view of the strong antecedent probability in favour of the adoption of such a custom by Jains for reasons already given, I think a presumption arises in favour of the antiquity of a custom, of which instances extending over a period of some thirty years are forthcoming. I agree, therefore, with, the learned Chief Justice in holding that there is no sufficient ground for our differing from the view taken by the two lower Courts that the adoption of the defendant was valid. In view, however, of the limited nature of the evidence adduced in the present case, I also agree that the issue which, was framed in this Court's interlocutory judgment of 18th November 1918, which is unnecessarily wide for the purpose of deciding this case, cannot be answered entirely in the affirmative. But as the evidence adduced in the present case was sufficient as between the parties to the suit to entitle the Courts below to dismiss the plaintiff's suit, I concur in dismissing the appeal with costs.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1