Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Rameswar Mandal And Ors. vs Provabati Debi on 27 May, 1914

Pramatha Nath Bose And Ors. vs Bhuban Mohan Bose And Anr. on 16 March, 1921

In Rameswar Mandal v. Provabati Debi 25 Ind. Cas. 84 : 20 C.L.J. 23 at p. 31 : 19 C.W.N. 313 it was explained that when a sale has been held in execution of a decree obtained against a limited owner, such as a Hindu widow, to enforce satisfaction of a debt, secured or unsecured, created by her, the real question is, what was liable to be and was actually sold. In the investigation of this question, the frame of the suit, the judgment, the decree, the execution proceedings, the sale proclamation, the amount of purchase-money and the conduct of the parties, must all be taken into account; the sale certificate is by no means conclusive. As the proceeding may be against the widow personally or against the widow as representing her husband's estate, the true test is to see whether the proceeding in which the sale was directed was brought against the widow personally or with a view to affect the whole inheritance. It is not necessary that the reversioner should be joined as party to the suit, but if he is so joined, the fact would afford clear indication that the creditor intended to make the inheritance liable and not to restrict his remedy to the qualified interest of the widow.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Rames Chandra Chakrabarti And Ors. vs Sasi Bhusas Upadhay on 10 June, 1919

6. As regards legal necessity, was must bear in mind that it is nit sufficient for the transferee to prove that there were some debts payable by the deceased full owner or his widow. A person who claims title under an alienation from her must prove that there was legal necessity for it, that h, such pressure on the estate at the time the alienation was made as justified the act of the widow. The creditor is not protected merely by proof that the money raised has been applied for the benefit of the estate. The true rule is that the creditor, to protect himself---where he is not shown to have made a bona fide enquiry---must prove that there was an actual pressure on the estate or danger to be averted, such as a threatened suit on a genuine debt, an outstanding decree or an impending sale, which the widow had no funds to meet: Rameswar Manddl v. Provabati Debi25 Ind. Cas. 84; 20 C. L. J. 23 at p. 28; 19 C. W. N. 313.. Tested from this point of view, there is no solid foundation laid here for proof of legal necessity for the sale to the defendant. There is a general recital in the conveyance that Mahim had contracted debts which could not be repaid out of the income. There is no specification of debtors or of the amount of their dues. The only debt specified, namely, the mortgage executed in favour of Bansi Mandal on the previous day, was manifestly illusory. The transaction, as we have seen, had been arranged at least three months earlier when the stamps were purchased on the 12th March 1895. The fact that a mortgage was executed on the 15th June and is said to have been repaid on the 16th June out of the alleged consideration for the conveyance, is not calculated to inspire condense in the genuineness of the transaction. Evidence was brought forward at the trial to show that decrees had been obtained against the widow for small sums of money due for arrears of rant, but most of these appear to have been satisfied, Same rough account books of Mahim have been produced to show that from time to time he ased to t ika loans from others; the aggregate of the entries selected comes to about R>. 1,030. But the account books are obviously incomplete; in some places, entries have been out in an inexplicable manner in other place, there is no bredit side. It is impossible to draw any inference from these account books as to the financial position of Mahim at the time of his death. On the other hand, it is a matter for legitimate comment that the account books of 1895, that is, the year in which these transactions took place, are not forthcoming. They would have shown, if properly kept, the exact state of the family funds and the mode in which the alleged considerations for the sales and leases, if really received by the widow, were applied by her. No reliance can be placed upon the assertions made by the defendant in his oral testimony to show that Mahim at the time of bis death was in debt to the extent of nearly Rs, 2,700, These allegations are not corroborated by contemporaneous documentary evidence and are not strengthened by testimony that Mahim sometime before his death had been sued by Sarat Kumari, one of his sisters-in-law, for a share of the ancestral properties of her husband. As already stated the evidence, if accepted, tends to show that Mahim sometimes used to take loans and at the time of his death probably left "koine debts. Beyond this the evidence does not carry us, and we have really no information as to the state of family affairs at or about the time when the series of transactions mentioned took place. We must not also overlook the fact that the defendant knows all about the transactions, while the plaintiffs have no personal knowledge of them; indeed, the first plaintiff was a child two years old when the sale took place, and his brothers, the other plaintiffs, had not been born then. In our opinion, the claim of the defendant cannot possibly be supported on the ground of justifying legal necessity.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Lala Ram Asre Singh And Ors. vs Ambica Lal And Ors. on 24 January, 1929

The reason is obvious. It is quite true that the liability to pay rent is a personal liability; but once a decree is obtained, there is imminent danger to the property being sold up in execution of the rent decree; and it is for this reason that the Courts of Law have held that the necessity to pay off decrees for rent constitutes a legal necessity within the meaning of that term as used in Hindu Law. Mr. Khursaid Husnain has referred us to various authorities in support of his contention that a limited owner is not entitled to alienate any portion of her husband's estate until the decree is actually put into execution. I have considered these decisions; and, in my opinion, they do not support the contention put forward before us. On the other hand, there is clear authority for the opposite view in the decision of Mukerji, J., in Rameswar Mandal v. Provabati Debi 25 Ind. Cas. 84 : 20 C.L.J. 23 : 19 C.W.N. 313 I hold, therefore, that so far as the transaction of 30th March, 1903 is concerned, it must be upheld and the plaintiffs' suit must fail with regard to that transaction.
Patna High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Dhondo Yeshvant Kulkarni vs Mishrilal Surajmal on 23 August, 1935

In some cases the extreme view taken in these decisions has been modified-and it is held that where the intention of the contracting parties is that the-estate was to be bound, it would remain liable in the reversioner's hands-although it was not charged, and it would be otherwise where the widow intended to bind herself alone, and that such intention can be gathered from the statements in the deed, if any, or from the surrounding circumstances: Rameswar Mandal v. Provabati Debi (1914) 20 C.L.J. 23, Regulla Jogayya v. Nimushakavi Venkataratnamma (1910) I.L.R. 33 Mad.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Aukula Sanyasi vs Gundala Ramachandra Rao And Ors. on 2 February, 1926

188 : 21 M.L.J. 320 and Rameswar Mandal v. Provabati Debt (1914) 20 C.L.J. 23. But where the evidence that the debt is binding on the estate is wanting and where the proceedings in the suit do not show that the widow represented the estate so as to attract the application of r,es judicata in a subsequent case, I do not think it is permissible merely by reference to the proclamation to say. that the whole property has passed though it has not been shown that there was necessity. I do not think that such a proposition of law has ever been laid down. In this case the proclamation was drafted after the claim petition and is therefore suspicious.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ankula Sanyasi vs Gundala Ramachandra Rao And Ors. on 2 February, 1926

1072 : 34 M. 188 : (1910) M. W. N. 799 : 9 M. L. T. 235 : 21 M. L. J. 320. and Rameswar Mandal v. Provabati Debi 25 Ind. Cas 84 : 20 C. L. J. 23 : 19 C. W. N. 313. But where the evidence that the debt is binding on the estate is wanting and where the proceedings in the suit do not show that the widow represented the estate so as to attract the application of res judicata in a subsequent case, I do not think it is permissible merely by reference to the proclamation to say-that the whole property has passed though it has not been shown that there was necessity. I do not think that such a proposition of law has ever been laid down. In this case the proclamation was drafted after the claim petition and is, therefore, suspicious.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1