Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 31 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing Raja Rai Bhagwat Dayal Singh vs Debi Dayal Sahu on 4 January, 1908

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

L.R. 591 : 11 C.W.N. 474 : 4 A.L.J. 232 : 2 M.L.T. 145 : 17 M.L. J. 233 : 10 O.C. 117 (P.C), Singam Setti v. Draupadi Bayamma 31 M. 153 : 3 M.L.T. 251 : 18 M.L..J. 11, Ramdei Kunwar v. Abu Jafar 27 A. 494 : A.W.N. (1905) 68, Bhagwat Dayal Singh v. Debi Dayal Sahu 35 I.A. 48 : 35 C. 420 : 7 C.L.J. 335 : 12 C.W. N. 303 : 10 Bom. L.R. 230 : 5 A.L.J. 184 : 18 M.L.J. 100 : 3 M.L.T. 344 : 14 Bur. L.R. 49 (P.C.). This principle, applicable to a case of an excessive sale by a Hindu widow, cannot, however, be invoked by the plaintiffs, as the case before us is not one of excessive sale. No doubt, the mortgage was granted for a loan which was in part taken for purposes not comprised within the category of legal necessity; but the decree in the mortgage suit remedied this defeat, and directed a sale of the hypothecated property, only for so mush of the mortgage money as could be deemed to have been raised for legitimate objects. In such circumstances, the execution purchaser cannot be called upon to submit to redemption, in whole or in part, with regard to the property in his hands.
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mallappa Gurupadapa Belvaldavar vs Anant Balkrishna Najrayanpeit on 30 March, 1936

The other case of Raja Rai Bhagwat v. Debi Dayal Sahu was no doubt a case of a sale by a widow; it was held that it was in part for legal necessity and in part not for legal necessity, and the Privy Council held that the plaintiff was entitled to mesne profits, the specific amount to be ascertained in execution, but as against that the purchaser was entitled to interest at six per cent, on so much of the purchase money as had been devoted to legal necessity. So that case was, in part at any rate, a case of restitutio in integrum.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Rameswar Mandal And Ors. vs Provabati Debi on 27 May, 1914

P.C.J. 197 and Bhagwat Dayal Singh v. Devi Dayal Sahu 35 I.A. 48 : 35 C. 420 (P.C.) : 12 C.W.N. 393 : 7 C.L.J. 335 : 10 Bom. L.R. 230 : 5 A.L.J. 184 : 18 M.L.J. 100 : 3 M.L.T. 344 : 14 Bur.L.R. 49. Consequently, a person who claims title under an alienation from her must prove that there was legal necessity for it, that is, such pressure on the estate at the time the loan was taken or the alienation made as justified the act of the widow. He can also protect himself by proof of bona fide inquiry, and if the fact of such inquiry is established, the real existence of an alleged sufficient and reasonably credited necessity is not a condition precedent to the validity of his title. In the case before us, there is no proof of bona fide inquiry by the creditor, and further reference need not consequently be made to this possible aspect of the matter. The question then reduces to this, was there legal necessity for the loan? The mere fact that the loan was taken to pay rent and the money raised was applied for that purpose, is clearly not sufficient.
Calcutta High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Bharat Ramanuja Das Mohant vs Sarat Kamini Dasi And Ors. on 14 April, 1921

L. R. 591 : 5 C. L. J. 344 : 11 C. W. N. 474: 4 A. L. J. 232: 2 M. L. T. 145 : 17 M. L. J. 238 : 29 A. 331 : 10 O. C. 117, and Bhagwat Dayal v. Debt Dayal 35 I A 8 : 35 C. 420 : 7 C. L. J. 335 : 12 C. W. N. 39 : 18 M. L. J. 100 : 5 A. L. J. 184 : 14 Bur. L. R. 49 : 3 M. L. T. 344 : 10 Bom;, L. R. 230 (P. C.). The substance of the matter is that the compromise decree was of the same type as the conditional decree, such as may be and is often made in suits by reversioners, where the alienation by a limited owner is set aside on equitable terms. We are of opinion, consequently, that even according to the test formulated by Sir Richard Couch, the plaintiff mast be held bound by the doctrine of lit pendens.
Calcutta High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chandrakisore Datta Majumdar vs Kumar Upendra Chandra Choudhury And ... on 9 March, 1923

2. It is well-settled that, when a person claims title under an alienation effected, by a Hindu widow in respect of the estate of her husband, the burden lies upon him to establish either that there was legal necessity in fact which Justified the alienation, or that he made proper and bona fide enquiries and did all that was reasonable to satisfy himself as to the existence of such necessity. This position is supported by the decisions of the Judicial Committee In Bhagwat Dayal Singh v. Debt Dayal Sahu 35 I.A. 48 : 35 C. 420 : 7 C.L.J. 335 : 10 Bom. L.R. 230 : 12 C.W.N. 393 : 5 A.L.J. 184 : 18 M.L.J. 100 : 3 M.L.T. 344 : 14 Bur.
Calcutta High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Nawab Syed Mahammad Hashim Ali Khan And ... vs Iffat Ara Hamidi Begum And Ors. on 20 May, 1941

42. The conveyance by Juhi Begum to Mahu-mada Begum in my view can be challenged by Nawab Hashem Ali Khan and his transferee Syed Ashiq Hossein. I do not think that the learned Subordinate Judge was right, when he said that they cannot do so on the supposed authority in Raja Rai Bhagwat Dayal v. Debi Dayal Sahu ('08) 35 Cal, 420 Nawab Hashem Ali Khan is the legal representative of Juhi Begum and so he and his assignee Syed Ashiq Hossein can raise the defence which was certainly open to Juhi Begum. The consideration for the conveyance as recited therein was some debts said to be due by Juhi Begum to Saleji on two promissory notes marked (EXS. Y1 and Y) which the latter had assigned to Mamuda Bibi and the payment to her of a monthly allowance of Rs. 100 as long as she would live. The claim on those promissory notes was barred at the date of the conveyance and the payments said to have been made by Juhi Begum on the promissory notes from time to time and said to have been endorsed by her on the back of them to keep them alive are fictitious and false. (Exhibits Y1 and Y.B 357-360). Juhi Begum had no means to make those payments. She had a small political pension and even according to the case of Mamuda Bibi she was in a state of perpetual indebtedness and want. No attempt has been made in this case either to prove those payments or endorsements.
Calcutta High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Durga Prosad Barhai vs Jewdhari Sing And Ors. on 17 January, 1935

There have been cases before the Judicial Committee where in the case of sale a conditional order of repayment of the portion for which there was no legal necessity was made and in this connexion we might refer to the decisions in the cases of Deputy Commissioner of Kheri v. Khanjan Singh (1907) 29 All 331 and in Raja Rai Bhagwat Dayal Singh v. Debi Dayal Sahu (1908) 35 Cal 420. At p. 57 of the latter report it will appear that the conveyances were not held good, but the decree for possession in that case was made conditional because it was found that the payment made by the particular respondent of portions of the consideration money were advanced for legitimate necessities. We are therefore of opinion that the contention of the respondents must fail having regard to our finding that it has not been established on evidence that there was a bona fide enquiry by the lender in the present case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next