Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 43 (0.56 seconds)
Documents citing Sham Sundar Lal And Ors. vs Achhan Kunwar And Anr. on 27 July, 1898

The South Indian Export Co. Ltd. vs T.N. Viswanatha Iyer And Ors. on 2 March, 1914

10. Then we have also the fact that a new tannery was before October erected by this Pattammal at a cost of Rs. 15,000 with money advanced by the Company and we have evidence--it is not disputed I think-that the whole of this Rs. 10,000 was spent on the business. The evidence is that during the two years of her life-time Pattammal drew very little indeed out of the business--Rs. 3,000 or 4,000 I think--and the whole of the other money was devoted to the business. Possibly the evidence might have been put in, but I am not sure that the plaintiff was fully alive to the necessity of proving necessity. On the whole I think that the money borrowed in the ordinary course of business for the purpose of the business was honestly put into the business and expended, on the business and must prima facie be taken to have been properly borrowed, and I hold that this advance of Rs. 10,000 was made to the widow for proper and necessary purposes. That follows, in my opinion, largely from my findings that the business was a proper one to carry on. This case is entirely different from the money lending business in Sham Sundar Lal v. Ashan Kunwar 21 A. 71 : 25 I. A. 183 at p. 192 : 2 C.W.N. 729 : 7 Sar. P.C.J. 417. which does not necessarily involve borrowiug money to the same extent.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fayazul Rahman vs Muhammad Usman And Ors. on 14 June, 1909

31. Thus in Sham Sunder Lal v. Achhan Kunwar (1805) 3 Mer. 667 at p. 671 Lord Davey in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee, says "What was the position of the parties at the respective dates of the execution of these two bonds? At the date of the bond of 1877 Halas Kuar, as the heir of Khairati Lal, was the owner of his estate, but with a restricted power of alienation. Achhan Kunwar was next in succession, and would, if she survived her mother, become her father's heir, and takes the estate subject to the same restriction. Enayet Singh was one of the two male heirs next in succession to the restricted estates who would be full owners in the event of their surviving their grandmother and mother. Enayet was, moreover, a minor. At the date of the bond of 1881 Achhan Kunwar was owner of the property for a daughter's estate with restricted power of alienation, and Enayet Singh was one of the heirs-apparent. At both dates Enayet Singh was living in his father's house and dependent upon him. In 1877 neither Achhan Kunwar nor Enayet Singh (even if he had been of age) could by Hindu Law make a disposition of or bind their expectant interests nor does the deed apply to any but rights in possession, and in 1881 Enayet Singh was equally incompetent to do so, though the deed purports to bind future rights."
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Debi Prosad Chowdhury vs Golap Bhagat on 1 April, 1913

165. Again, in Sham Sundar Lal v. Achhan Kunwar (1898) I.L.R. 21 All. 71; L. R. 25 I. A. 183., Lord Davey gives expression to the theory that consent of reversioners merely affords proof of the-propriety of the transaction, in the following terms. "At the date of the bond of 1877, Hulas Kuar, as the heir of Khairati Lal was the owner of his estate, but with a restricted power of alienation. Achhan Kunwar was next in succession, and, would, if she survived her mother, become her father's heir and take the estate, subject to the same restriction.' Inayat Singh was one of the two male heirs next in succession to the restricted estate who would be full owners in the event of their surviving their grandmother and mother. Inayat was moreover a minor. At the date of the bond of 1881, Achhan Kunwar was owner of the property for a daughter's estate with restricted power of alienation and Inayat Singh was one of the heirs apparent. At both dates Inayat Singh was living in his father's house and dependent upon him. In 1877 neither Achhan Kunwar nor Inayat Singh (even if he had been of age), could by Hindu Jaw make a disposition or bind their expectant interests, nor does the deed apply to any but rights in possession, and in 1881 Inayat Singh was equally incompetent to do so, though the deed purports to bind future rights. To give validity to the bonds as against the estate of Khairati Lal, the plaintiffs and appellants must show that there was legal necessity for raising the money by a charge on Khairati's estate, or, at least, that in advancing their money the creditors gave credit on reasonable grounds to representations that the money was wanted for such necessity. It is not a case in which all the kindred of Khairati have assented or could assent to the bonds, or either of them, and the circumstances are not such as, in the opinion of their Lordships, to raise any presumption, from such concurrence as there was of Achhan Kunwar and Inayat Singh in the first bond or of Inayat Singh in the second bond, that the transaction was a fair one or one justified by Hindu law. In order to raise such a presumption the consent of the deceased's kindred to his widow's or daughter's alienation must be shown to be given with a knowledge of the effect of. what they were doing and an intelligent intention to consent to such effect."
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Sri K.L. Jagannada Raju Garu And Anr. vs Sri Rajah K.V.S.V.L.N.V.J.B. Prasada ... on 24 March, 1915

6. It was not seriously suggested that there was any rule of Hindu Law by which the rights of the parties should be determined to the exclusion of Section 6(a) of the Transfer of Property Act. Some cases that were relied upon by the appellant in reference to this point were decided before the Transfer of Property Act came into force, and therefore proceeded on the rule of English equity which enforced specific performance of ouch agreements; they do not enunciate any specific rule of Hindu Law which is to prevail unaffected by the Transfer of Property Act (section 2(d) of the Act). On the other hand in Sham Sunder Lal v. Achhan Kunwar (1898) I.L.R. 21 All. 71 at p. 80 (P.C.)
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Annada Mohan Roy vs Gour Mohan Mallik on 23 August, 1920

No useful purpose is, therefore, likely to be served by an analysis of judicial decisions which were pronounced before Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act was enacted or before the Judicial Committee made a pronouncement on the subject in Sham Sundar v. Achhan Kunwar 21 A. 71 : 2 C.W.N. 729 : 23 I.A. 183 : 7 Sar P.C.J. 417 : 9 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 755 (P.C.). Bat it may be pointed out that the trend of judicial opinion in this Court was undoubtedly not in favour of the contention that the interest of a Hindu reversioner could form the subject of actual alienation, voluntary or involuntary, or of valid agreement for transfer.
Calcutta High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Brindaban Chunder Shaha vs Sureshwar Saha Pramanik on 23 July, 1909

In the case of Sham Sunder v. Achhan Kunwar 25 I.A. 183 : 21 A. 71 : 2 C.W.N. 729 which is the foundation of the argument addressed to us on behalf of the appellant, the question arose as to the validity of certain mortgages one of which was executed by the widow and the other by the daughter of the original owner with the concurrence in each case of the reversionary heirs. It was found that the alienation by the widow or the daughter was not binding upon the estate. The question, therefore, arose whether the reversionary heir was affected. Their Lordships observed that in 1877, the date of the first bond, neither Achhan Koer nor Enayet Singh who were the reversionary heirs and had joined in the transaction could by Hindu Law make a disposition of or bind their expectant interests.
Calcutta High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 Next