Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.75 seconds)
Documents citing Kamakshya Narain Singh Bahadur vs Baldeo Sahai And Ors. on 10 March, 1948

Rajesh Chhabra vs Radhey Lal Jeswani And Others on 16 September, 2025

Meredith, J., in Kamakshya Narain Singh Bahadur v. Baldeo Sahai [AIR 1950 Pat 97 : ILR 27 Pat 441] has dealt with the English law on the subject and has pointed out that Beaumont, C.J. in Krishnadas Padmanabhrao Chandavarkar v. Vithoba Annappa Shetti [AIR 1939 Bom 67 (FB) : ILR 1939 Bom 340 : 180 IC 51] was not right in his appreciation of the English law on the subject. According to the learned Judge (Meredith, J.) the substantive right of an infant, on attaining majority, to avoid a decree obtained against him owing to the gross negligence of his next friend was undoubtedly recognised in England from early times.
Allahabad High Court Cites 71 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Lalji Sah And Ors. vs Sat Narain Bhagat And Ors. on 13 October, 1961

14. The next contention of Mr. Thakur Prasad, learned advocate for the plaintiff-respondent, is that Musammat Dhanwa, another--guardian of Satnarain, was an illiterate rustic woman--and, therefore, she was grossly negligent in looking after the interest of the minor and fraud was practised upon her by the appellant Lalji Sah and his creatures. (His Lordship examined this contention and proceeded.) Thus, the plaintiff has failed to prove fraud or collusion with regard to the small cause court decree on the part of the guardian ad litem, Musammat Dhanwa. The learned advocate for the plaintiff-respondent, however, contended that, even in the absence of fraud or collusion on her part, the plaintiff can avoid the decree On the ground of gross negligence on the part of the guardian. There can be no dispute about this principle (See: Kamakshya Narain Singh v. Baldeo Sahai, AIR 1950 Pat 97.) But as pointed out by Meredith J., the expression 'gross negligence' is a bit vague and, as observed by Trevelyan on the Law relating to Minors, 5th Edn. page 284:
Patna High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

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

9. A review of all available authorities on the subject has been made by the Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Kamakshya Narain Singh v. Baldeo Sahai, ILR 27 Pat 441: (AIR 1950 Pat 97) and the result of that review has been that with the exception of the Bombay High Court in the Full Bench case of Krishnadas Padmanabhrao v. Vithoba Annappa, AIR 1939 Bom 66 it has been laid down by all the High Courts that a minor can avoid a decree passed against him on the ground of gross negligence on the part of the guardian ad litem.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ram Kirpal Choudhary And Ors. vs Mt. Munabati Kumri And Ors. on 24 January, 1957

There is no doubt that if it is established that the pleader guardian, as a matter of fact, did not act or take any interest in the proceeding at all, it has to be held that he was guilty of gross negligence in the discharge of his duties (Kamakshaya Narain Singh v. Baldeo Sahai, AIR 1950 Pat 97 (FB) (U)). The lower appellate Court in this case in order to find out as to whether the guardian ad litem did or did not take any step on behalf of the minors in the former case has laid reliance on the circumstances apparent from the facts stated in the two judgments, namely, Exhibits 6 and B. Mr. Sinha's contention is that the facts stated in those judgments cannot in law be used as evidence to prove the fact that the guardian ad litem did not take any step for defending the interest of the minor. In my opinion, on the principles stated above, this contention cannot be sustained in law.
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1