Sheikh Karoo And Ors. vs Rameshwar Sao And Sukhdeo Sahu And Anr. on 2 June, 1921
L.R. 435 and Amar Chandra Kundu v. Sebak Chand Chowdhury 34 C. 642 : 11 C.W.N. 593 : 5 C.L.J. 491 : 2 M.L.T. 207 (F.B.).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (1.19 seconds)Documents citing
Amar Chandra Kundu vs Sebak Chand Chowdhury on 23 March, 1907
Chotey Lall vs Ganpat Rai And Anr. on 13 March, 1934
In the case of Amar Chandra Kundu v. Sebak Chand (1907) 34 Cal. 642 Mitra and Holmwood, JJ., had a case in which the joint ancestral property belonged to a brother and brother's son who had taken it as survivors. The decree-holder applied for realisation of the balance of the debt due after the mortgaged property had been sold and sought a money decree against the widow and a minor son of the deceased debtor as well as the other coparceners. The learned Judges stated:
Ganesh Sakharam Saraf vs Narayan Shriram Mulaye on 14 April, 1931
The father, if he is the sole judgment-debtor, represents the joint family estate, and the son also represents the estate and can be considered as the legal representative of the father under Section 50 of the Civil Procedure Code read with Section 53 of the Code, I am inclined to agree with the view taken in the full bench decision in Amar Chandra Kundu v. Sebak Chand Chowdhury (1907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 642 F.B. I may refer to the remarks of Mitra J. (p. 653):-
Ram Lal Singh And Ors. vs Maharaja Paswati Bejoypati Gajpati on 13 January, 1910
7. The decree under execution excludes the persons and other property of the appellant? from liability but makes the assets of the mortgagor amenable to the realization of the amount decreed. The property in question is not their self-acquired property but has come to them by survivorship. The Full Bench case, reported in Amar Chandra Kundu v. Sebak Chand Chowdhury 34 C. 642 : 11 C.W.N. 593 : C.L.J. 491 : 2 M.L.T. 207 (F.B.), makes such property liable for the decretal-debt of the father unless tainted with immorality. No question of immorality apises in this case and the property, therefore, must be sold if the debt is not satisfied. The appeal, therefore fails and I agree in dismissing the appeal, with costs, 3 gold mohurs.
Bishan Narain And Anr. vs Om Parkash And Ors. on 22 November, 1951
8. Mr. Justice Patkar in 'Ganesh Sakharam'S Case', 55 Bom 709, relied on some judgment of the Calcutta High Court, firstly on 'Amar Chandra v. Sebak Chand', 34 Cal 642 F B. There a decree for money was passed against a member of a joint family governed by the law of Mitakshara. This decree was sought to be executed after his death against his son who took ancestral property by survivorship as legal representative. It was held that the son was the legal representative and might as such be brought in the record. At p. 653 Mitra, J. said:
Chunilal Harilal vs Bai Mani on 21 January, 1918
5. We have in the course of the argument been referred to a considerable number of cases, of which Amar Chandra Kundu v. Sebak Chand Chowdhury (1907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 642, f.b is an instance. It is an interesting instance for this reason that it indicates quite clearly the kind of difficulty which the new provision in the Code is intended to overcome. The new provision which I have alluded to is Section 53. But seeing that this new provision has been incorporated in the Code, we have to determine the law from a consideration of that provision and not, as we have been invited to do, from a consideration of the decisions which were given before the law was changed.
Dhondo Khando vs Waman Balwant on 4 January, 1944
In Amar Chandra Kundu v. Sebak Chand
Chowdhury (1907) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 642, F.B. Mitra J. expressed the opinion that, apart from heirship as regards the self-acquired property of a deceased father, a son in a joint family governed by the Mitakshara system must be held to be his father's legal representative.
Ganeshmull Surana vs Nagraj Surana on 20 November, 1951
In -- 'Amar Chandra Kundu v. Sebak Chand Chowdhry', 34 Cal 642 (FB), a decree for money passed against a member of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara was sought to be executed after his death against his son and heir. Mitra J., one of the members of the Full Bench, made the following observation at p. 654:
Durga Dass Narain And Ors. vs Umatul Hosein Begam And Ors. on 17 February, 1908
10. The learned Vakil for the appellant admits that even if we had not taken this view, then on the authority of the decision of the Full Bench in the case of Amar Chandra Kundu v. Sebak Chand Chowdhury 34 C. 642; 11 C.W.N. 593; 5 C.L.J. 491; 2 M.L.T. 207 (F.B.) it would have been necessary for us to send the case back to the Subordinate Judge of Patna in order that he might send the decree for execution to the District Judge of Gaya in order that that officer might determine how far the properties of the sons as legal representatives of their deceased father were liable to sale in satisfaction of their father's debt.
Gur Pershad Singh vs Dhani Rai on 5 September, 1910
Bench case of Amar Chandra Kundu v. Sebak Chand Chowdhury (1907) I.L.R. 34 Calc. 642 a Mitakshara son was held to be a legal representative of his father within the meaning of Section 234 of the old Civil Procedure Code for the purpose of working out an execution against him of a decree obtained against his father, but that is a question of procedure, and does not take away from the substantive law that the son succeeds by the rule of survivorship. In any case he does not succeed as an heir to the effects of the deceased. He succeeds by right of survivorship, although his other rights under the law were in abeyance during the lifetime of the last incumbent on account of the peculiar nature and incident of the property in question. He is not therefore bound to produce a succession certificate before he can obtain a decree. The suit must therefore be decreed with costs of the first Court only against the defendant; as in an ex parte case. We may add that our judgment proceeds on the assumption that the family is governed by the Mitakshara law as applicable to impartible estates.