Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 49 (6.53 seconds)
Documents citing Mahant Damodar Das vs Adhikari Lakhan Das on 7 June, 1910

Application Of Limitation Provision ... vs Ds Fy on 20 January, 2005

We also mention at this stage another decision in Damodar Das Vs. Adhikari Lakhan Das (supra) wherein the Privy Council gave benefit of Section 6 though otherwise the limitation had expired on the ground that on the date when the cause of action accrued the Shebait was minor and as soon as he attained majority he file suit within the period of limitation provided under Section 6 hence the suit was not barred by limitation.
Allahabad High Court Cites 161 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mahanth Ram Charan Das vs Munshi Naurangi Lal on 17 January, 1933

L.R. 597 and Damodar Das v. Lakhan Das) had affirmed the view that in a suit to recover the property of an idol or a Math the starting point for the period of limitation was the date of the alienation and not the date on which the successor of the alienor aasumed office. They also held that,, the authority of those cases was in no way affected by the later decision of this Board in Vidya Varuthi's case
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

Venkateswara Sarma, Styled ... vs S.N. Venkatesa Aiyar And Ors. on 17 December, 1940

In so far as the alienation was in breach of specific trust, it was held to be void ab initio, as the transfer of the math would have been according to Damodar Das's case (1910) 20 M.L.J. 624 : L.R. 37 I.A. 147 : I.L.R. 37 Cal. 885, and limitation was held to start from the date of alienation. The Matalhipathi had, in the present case, on the other hand, liberty to dispose of the property during his life although the alienation made by him was only to the extent of his own life interest. It would follow, therefore, that possession during the last manager's life could not be adverse and that upon his death, it would run against the succeeding trustee, that is, the present plaintiff from the time that he assumed office with the extended period of limitation under Section 6 as he was a minor at the time from which the period of limitation was to be counted.
Madras High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Rajendra Singh vs . Zahoor Ahmad And Others on 1 April, 1950

"A Hindu Idol is sometimes spoken of as a perpetual infant, but the analogy is not only incorrect but is positively misleading. There is no warrant for such doctrine in the rules of Hindu law and as was observed by Rankin, C.J. In Surendra V. Sri Sri Bhubaneswari, it is an extravagant doctrine contrary to the decision of the Judicial Committee in such cases as Damodar Das Vs. Lakhan Das. It is true that the deity like an infant suffers from legal disability and has got to act through some agent and there is a similarity also between the powers of the shebait of a deity and 186 those of the guardian of an infant. But the analogy really ends there. For purposes of Limitation Act the idol does not enjoy any privilege and regarding contractual rights also the position of the idol is the same as that of any other artificial person. The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code relating to suits by minors or persons of unsound mind do not in terms at least apply to an idol; and to build up a law of procedure upon the fiction that the idol is an infant would lead to manifestly undesirable and anomalous consequences."
Allahabad High Court Cites 99 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Hamidmiya Sarfuddin vs Nagindas Jivanji on 16 September, 1932

Whether, in other words, the case is governed by the decisions of which Damodar Das v. Adhikari Lakhan Das may be taken as the leading authority : or by the line of authority of which Vidya Varuthi Thirtha v. Balusuami Ayyar may ho taken as typical. Their Lordships, while not pronouncing upon it, have given very careful consideration to this interesting and difficult question. Upon it they say no more than this, that they must not be taken to accept the view with reference to it propounded by the High Court. So far as they are concerned the question remains entirely open to bo determined when it arises.
Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next