Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.35 seconds)
Documents citing Chinta Dasya vs Bhalku Das on 17 March, 1930

Mahabir Saha vs Haripada Saha And Ors. on 24 August, 1981

8. It appears that plaintiff No. 2 is not a pardanasin woman because she appeared before the learned Subordinate Judge and gave evidence. She also signed the document Of lease on her behalf and also on behalf of her son and was not an illiterate woman. So the aforesaid cases of Chinta Dasya v. Bhalku Das (AIR 1930 Cal 591) (supra), Sm. Sonia parshini v. Sheikh Moula Baksha (supra), A. E. G. Carapiet v. A. Y. Derderian (supra) and Mohini Mohan v. Southern Bank Ltd. (1954-84 Cal LJ 39) (supra) have no application to the facts of this case. The reason is simple because the plaintiff is not a pardanasin or illiterate woman. This discussion is sufficient for the disposal of the appeal because there is no appropriate prayer hi the plaint in this respect.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Maya W/O Sh. Hargyan Singh vs Late Anaro Devi W/O Late Mahipal Singh on 30 August, 2019

Gangesh­ war Prasad, J. followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chinta Dasya v. Bhalku Das, AIR 1930 Cal 591, wherein Mitter, J. held, that rules regarding transactions by a pardahnashin lady were equally applica­ ble to an illiterate and ignorant woman, though she may not be pardah­ nashin. We are unable to comprehend as to why the broad principle which has been accepted and widely applied in the numerous decisions to which we have adverted should not also embrace within its sweep the cases of males who by reasons of their apparent physical or mental inca­ pacity or infirmity or being placed in circumstances where they are greatly amenable to the overpowering influence of another person are in­ duced to enter into conveyances and transactions relating to their prop­ erty. The basic principle is the same and where it is proved to the satis­ faction of the court either that the bargain was on the face of it uncon­ scionable or the executant was the victim of physical or mental handicap or that he was subdued by the complexity of circumstances in which an­ other person had an upper hand, the burden must be cast squarely on the person enjoying the dominating position to show that he secured the deed in good faith."
Delhi District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Daya Shankar vs Smt. Bachi And Ors. on 4 January, 1980

Gangeshwar Prasad, J. followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chinta Dasya v. Bhalku Das, AIR 1930 Cal 591, wherein Mitter, J. held, that rules regarding transactions by a pardahnashin lady were equally applicable to an illiterate and ignorant woman, though she may not be pardahnashin. We are unable to comprehend as to why the broad principle which has been accepted and widely applied in the numerous decisions to which we have adverted should not also embrace within its sweep the cases of males who by reasons of their apparent physical or mental incapacity or infirmity or being placed in circumstances where they are greatly amenable to the overpowering influence of another person are induced to enter into conveyances and transactions relating to their property. The basic principle is the same and where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court either that the bargain was on the face of it unconscionable or the executant was the victim of physical or mental handicap or that he was subdued by the complexity of circumstances in which another person had an upper hand, the burden must be cast squarely on the person enjoying the dominating position to show that he secured the deed in good faith.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Ram Lakhan And Anr. vs Ghurahoo on 22 February, 2006

In Parasnath Rai v. Tileshra Kuar 1965 All LJ 1080, Gangeshwar Prasad, J., followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chinta Dasya v. Bhalku Das AIR 1930 Cal 591, wherein Mitter, J., held, that rules regarding transactions by a pardahnashin lady were equally applicable to an illiterate and ignorant woman, though she may not be pardahnashin. We are unable to comprehend as to why the broad principle which has been accepted and widely applied in the numerous decisions to which we have adverted should not also embrace within its sweep the cases of males who by reason of their apparent physical or mental incapacity or infirmity or being placed in circumstances where they are greatly amenable to the overpowering influence of another person are induced to enter into conveyances and transactions relating to their property. The basic principle is the same and where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Court either that the bargain was on the face of it unconscionable or the executant was the victim of physical or mental handicap or that he was subdued by the complexity of circumstances in which another person had an upper hand, the burden must be cast squarely on the person enjoying the dominating position to show that he secured the deed in good faith.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - U Pandey - Full Document

Ramu Mahabir vs Ghurhoo Samu on 22 February, 2006

In Parasnath Rai V. Tileshra Kuar 1965, All LJ 1080, Gangeshwar Prasad, J. followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chinta Dasya V. Bhalku Das AIR 1930 Cal 591, wherein Mitter, J. held, that rules regarding transactions by a pardahnashin lady were equally applicable to an illiterate and ignorant woman, though she may not be pardahnashin. We are unable to comprehend as to why the broad principle which has been accepted and widely applied in the numerous decisions to which we have adverted should not also embrace within its sweep the cases of males who by reasons of their apparent physical or mental incapacity or infirmity or being placed in circumstances where they are greatly amenable to the overpowering influence of another person are induced to enter into conveyances and transactions relating to their property. The basic principle is the same and where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court either that the bargain was on the face of it unconscionable or the executant was the victim of physical or mental handicap or that he was subdued by the complexity of circumstances in which another person had an upper hand, the burden must be cast squarely on the person enjoying the dominating position to show that he secured the deed in good faith.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - U Pandey - Full Document

Sri Jagannath Debnath vs (A). Sri Narayan Debnath on 13 February, 2023

In Parasnath Rai V. Tileshra Kuar 1965, All LJ 1080, Gangeshwar Prasad, J. followed the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Chinta Dasya V. Bhalku Das AIR 1930 Cal 591, wherein Mitter, J. held, that rules regarding transactions by a pardahnashin lady were equally applicable to an illiterate and ignorant woman, though she may not be pardahnashin. We are unable to comprehend as to why the broad principle which has been accepted and widely applied in the numerous decisions to which we have adverted should not also embrace within its sweep the cases of males who by reasons of their apparent physical or mental incapacity or infirmity or being placed in circumstances where they are greatly amenable to the overpowering influence of another person are induced to enter into conveyances and transactions relating to their property. The basic principle is the same and where it is proved to the satisfaction of the court either that the bargain was on the face of it unconscionable or the executant was the victim of physical or mental handicap or that he was subdued by the complexity of circumstances in which another person had an upper hand, the burden must be cast squarely on the person enjoying the dominating position to show that he secured the deed in good faith.
Tripura High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Kartari vs Kewal Krishan And Ors. on 14 October, 1971

7. Rules regarding transactions by 'pardanashin' women are equally applicable to illiterate and ignorant women though not 'pardanashin'. This is so held in Chinta Dasya v. Bhalku Das, AIR 1930 Cal 591. There is no reason, say their Lordships, why a rule which is applicable to pardanashin ladies on the ground of their ignorance and illiteracy should be restricted to that class only and should not apply to the case of a poor woman who is equally ignorant and illiterate and is not pardanashin, simply because she does not belong to that class. If that view of the matter were adopted the effect clearly would be to confer an unfair advantage upon rich women as compared with poor women. The object of the rule of law is to protect the weak and helpless and it would not be restricted to a particular class of the community.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1