Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.51 seconds)
Documents citing Karri Bapanna And Anr. vs Sunkari Yerramma And Ors. on 22 February, 1923

Kamakshya Narain Singh Bahadur vs Baldeo Sahai And Ors. on 10 March, 1948

I would have attached some weight to this argument had not their Lordships said that they were not prepared to agree with the view expressed in Kari Bapanna's case, A. I. R. (10) 1923 Mad. 718 : (45 M. L. J. 324). This is a case in which it had been pleaded that a previous decree was invalid because it had been obtained owing to negligence of the guardian and their Lordships laid down that they were not prepared to agree with the view expressed in this case. Their Lordships certainly meant that either according to Section 44, Evidence Act or on the principle on which that section was based a minor cannot avoid it decree on the ground of gross negligence by the guardian, and I need not repeat that the result of all the observations made by their Lordships is that the authority of the cases on which the appellant's learned lawyer has relied before us has been considerably shaken. It cannot be said that all kinds of litigants except a minor litigant are ordinary litigants.
Patna High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

N.P.L. Egappa Chettiar vs Em.S.V.L. Ramanathan Chettiar And Ors. on 8 December, 1941

Their Lordships did not decide the question whether a person could rely on the gross negligence of his guardian-ad-litem in a previous suit when he sought to set aside the decree passed therein. They were merely considering whether the principle expressed in India should be extended to suits with regard to public religious trusts, and the answer was in the negative. Their Lordships did indicate that Karri Bapanna v. Yerramma (1923) 45 M.L.J. 324 certainly went too far, but they did not go beyond this.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Asharfi Lal vs Smt. Koili (Dead) By L.Rs. on 20 April, 1995

13. After the said decision of the Privy Council, the matter has been considered by the various High Courts. Most of the High Courts have taken the view that though a judgment against a minor cannot be avoided on the ground of fraud or gross negligence on the part of his next friend under Section 44 of the Evidence Act, it is permissible for the minor to file a suit to set aside the. decree on the ground of fraud or gross negligence on the part of his next friend.
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 53 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Murli Manohar And Ors. vs Lachmanji And Ors. on 24 September, 1958

11. It is clear that their Lordships have been careful to express no opinion with regard to the validity of the decisions cited excepting one i.e. Karri Bapanna's case, 45 Mad LJ 324: (AIR 1923 Mad 718) that the Judges were wrong in extending Section 44 of the Evidence Act to cases of gross negligence. But the Indian decisions taken as a whole do not place the minor's right of suit upon the provisions of Section 44 but on a substantive right which Section 44 cannot affect.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Bijendra Mandal & Ors vs Ganpat Mandal on 4 December, 2015

13. After the said decision of the Privy Council, the matter has been considered by the various High Courts. Most of the High Courts have taken the view that though a judgment against a minor cannot be avoided on the ground of fraud or gross negligence on the part of his next friend under Section 44 of the Evidence Act, it is permissible for the minor to file a suit to set aside the decree on the ground of fraud or gross negligence on the part of his next friend.
Patna High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - A K Trivedi - Full Document

Halayudh And Anr. vs Tek Chand And Ors. on 2 April, 1953

This is riot correct. The learned counsel admitted that the plaintiffs had to prove that they had spent Rs. 12,000/- in completing the work. This point has been clearly brought out in the second issue. He cited a number of rulings, e.g.--'Raghuraj Singh', v. Majid-un-nissa', A. I. R. 1925 Oudh 692 (B);--'Bhup Singh v. Prem Singh', AIR 1924 Lah 362 (C)--'Kari Bapanna v. Sunkari Yerramma', AIR 1923 Mad 718 (D);--'Tin Maung v. Mg. Po Htoo', AIR 1927 Rang 192 (E)',--'Sundara Rama Iyer v. Sathianathan', AIR 1927 Mad 1190 (E) and--'Province of Bihar v. Choudhary Balam Singh', AIR 1950 Pat 356' (G). None of these cases, how-ever, justified a remand, as in the present case, where the party was given another opportunity to prove its case although it failed to do so in the trial Court without any justification and in ispite of a clear issue. The order of remand in the present case was, therefore wholly unjustified. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents did not point out any evidence on the record from which it could be said that the plaintiffs had proved any part of their claim for compensation. Their suit was, therefore, liable to dismissal on findings on both the issues.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Venkatachalam Chetti, Minor By Next ... vs Paramasivam Pillai on 3 February, 1927

2. It is significant that in the issues framed in the first Court the pleas of fraud" and collusion were given up and on turning to the plaint I do not find that any of the pleas in it were advanced. It is now argued that negligence apart from fraud and collusion would have been a good plea but it is not to be found in the plaint and the issues. Considering that it is a question of fact it is too late to take the point as the learned Subordinate Judge has taken it in appeal. That negligence is a question of fact is laid down in Karri Bapanma v. Yerramma (1923) 45 MLJ 324. The only valid point for his determination was Issue No. II. The learned Subordinate Judge agrees with the District Munsif that the consent of the guardian ad litem may fairly be presumed from the fact that he accepted the summons and I also agree. He finds, however, that the appointment was void because the in terest of the brother was adverse to that of the 2nd plaintiff.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1