Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.48 seconds)
Documents citing Abdul Majid vs Shamsherali Fakruddin on 8 February, 1940

V. Somasundaram vs S. Thirupurasundari And Ors. on 24 February, 1988

Hence the view as expressed in Abdul Majid v. Shamsherali Fakruddin 42 Bom. L.R. 521 : I.L.R. (1940) Bom. 514 : A.I.R. 1940 Bom. 285, brings about the correct interpretation of Section 214(l)(a) and (b) of the Act, and hence, the decree passed in the instant case was not a nullity. Inspite of being fully aware that the proper heirs of the deceased first plaintiff had come on record, and therefore, the suit had been contested, and even now there being no dispute raised to the effect that they are not his legal representatives, there is no need to go through the fruitless exercise of setting aside the decree by declaring it as a nullity.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Joginer Singh vs Pushpa on 20 March, 1968

In Abdul Majid v. Shamsherali fakruddin, AIR 1940 Bom 285, it was held that it was necessary to obtain a succession certificate under section 214 before the moneys payable to the estate of the deceased can be recovered. A decree obtained without obtaining such a certificate was held to be a valid decree and not a nullity. The learned Chief Justice of the Bombay high Court in this connection made the following observations:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 47 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Anraj vs Bijairaj And Ors. on 24 October, 1956

10. The next case, to which reference may be made, is Abdul Majid v. Shamsherali Fakruddin, AIR 1940 Bom 285 (C). That was a case where a suit had been decreed by the court in spite of the provisions of section 214 of the Succession Act. Section 214 provides that no court shall pass a decree against a debtor of a deceased person for payment of his debt to a person claiming on succession to be entitled to the effects of the deceased person or to any part thereof, except on the production, by the person so claiming, of, amongst other things, a succession certificate.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 11 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Arumugam Chelliah Paul (Since Deceased ... vs Life Insurance Corporation Of India on 30 November, 1989

He relied on this authority for the purpose of showing that Section 214 applies even if the suit was started by a creditor who died pending the suit, and his legal representatives were brought on record under O. 22 of the C.P.C. In this connection the Court referred to the case of Abdul Majid v. Shamsherali Fakruddin AIR 1940 Bom 285 wherein the above dictum is found.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

K. Laxminarayan vs V. Gopalaswami And Anr. on 27 March, 1963

The Small Causes Court Judge while construing these provisions came to the conclusion that this Section applies only where the legal representative of the creditor sues for the debt recoverable by the deceased but not where the creditor himself files the suit. On that basis he found that since the suit in this case was brought by the creditor who died during the pendency of the suit, his legal representative brought on record under the terms of the Civil Procedure Code to continue the suit is not governed by the provisions of Section 214, so far as the production of certificate is concerned. In my opinion, Section 214 has no such qualification for its application. The mandatory nature of this provision makes it necessary for the party to obtain a succession certificate, and certainly it cannot be waived with impunity by him. It follows therefore it is not correct to say that Section 214 does not apply where the suit was originally instituted by the creditor himself but only applies where it is instituted by the legal representative. As held by the Bombay High Court in Abdul Majid v. Shamsherali Fakruddin, AIR 1940 Bom 285 :
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Aparti Panda vs Govinda Sahu on 8 August, 1983

It may not be out of place to take note of another decision of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1940 Bom 285 (Abdul Majid v. Shamaherali Fakruddin), That was a case where the suit had been originally instituted by the creditor himself and the creditor died during the pendency of the suit. It was held that after the legal representatives were brought on record under Order 22, Civil P. C. Section 214 of the Succession Act would apply and therefore, a Judge should insist upon taking a succession certificate by the legal representatives in consonance with Section 214 of the Act. Thus this case really is one interpreting Section 214(1)(a) of the Act and not Section 214(1)(b).
Orissa High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 4 - G B Patnaik - Full Document

Gyarsilal And Ors. vs Murli on 5 September, 1986

9. On the other hand learned counsel for the non-petitioner placed reliance on Abdul Majid v. Shamsherali Fakruddin, AIR 1940 Bom 285 wherein it was held that Section 214, of the Indian Succession Act, applies where the suit was originally instituted by the creditor himself and he subsequently dies and also to a case where it is instituted by his legal representatives. This case does not say anything about the substitution of the legal representatives and proceeding with the suit without a succession certificate.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 Next