Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (1.16 seconds)Sashi Kantha Acharjee And Ors. vs Promode Chandra Roy And Ors. on 24 August, 1931
It is, therefore, of the essence of the validity of such contracts that there should be a bona fide settlement of a dispute arising out of conflicting claims to property -- a, situation of contest which is avoided by the policy of 'give &, take' otherwise all transfers or surrenders will pass under the cloak of a 'family arrangement' See -- 'Sashi Kantha v. Promode Chandra', AIR 1932 Cal 600 (J).
Mt. Dasodia vs Gaya Pd. Minor Through Sadho Ram on 16 December, 1942
The essence of the matter is that there should be some kind of consideration before an agreement in respect of the division of a family property can be held to be a valid family arrangement though, in such cases, the Court will not scrutinise the quantum of consideration with meticulous nicety--See --'Mt. Dasodia v. Gaya Prasad', AIR 1943 All 101 (PB) (O).
Sourendra Nath Mitra vs Srimati Tarubala Dasi on 2 January, 1930
It will be seen on a plain reading of the contents of this document that there has not been any adjustment of the suit as such, except that the plaintiff has been allotted one-fourth instead of one-fifth share in mouza Ganghati. In respect of the suit itself, all that the parties agreed to is that they would get their shares localised with reference to the plot numbers of the area and get plans prepared through a Patwari, and then file a compromise in the Subordinate Judge's court. It is not a case of a suit having been adjusted as contemplated in Rule 3 of Order 23, Civil P. C. The agreement contemplates something to be done by the parties through a Patwari and then seeks to take the suit completely out of the control of the Court. If any of the parties resiles from the agreement or neglects to perform its terms the agreement can only be enforced by a separate suit. In such a situation, the Court is helpless in executing the agreement even if it were to record the compromise and incorporate it in a decree. Apart from the question whether the agreement is lawful, the Court is bound to consider whether it has the power to refuse to record an agreement which is bound to result in injustice and lead to multiplicity of proceedings. Undoubtedly, the words of the rule do not, in terms, appear to confer a discretion on the Court, but it would seem from an observation of the Judicial Committee in -- 'Sourendra Nath v. Tarubala Dasi', AIR 1930 PC 158 at pp. 162-163 (Q), that the Courts retain an inherent power not to allow their proceedings to be used to work substantial injustice.
Mt. Akbari Begam vs Rahmat Husain And Ors. on 14 August, 1933
In the Full Bench case reported in -- 'Mt. Akbari Begum v. Rahmat Husain', AIR 1933 All 861 at p 880 (SB) (V), Sulaiman C. J. reiterated the same principle:
Section 25 in The Court of Wards Act, 1879 [Entire Act]
The Court of Wards Act, 1879
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
J. Williams vs Williams And Conran on 16 February, 1878
6. The leading English case on the subject of family arrangement which has been followed by Indian Courts is -- 'Williams v. Williams', (1867) 2 Ch 294 (A). In that case John Williams died leaving his two sons John and Samuel and his widow surviving him. After his death a testamentary paper, signed by him, was found, but as it had not been attested probate was refused. The father having died intestate and having left real estates of different tenures, the elder son John Williams became exclusively entitled to the so cage property and the younger son, Samuel, became exclusively entitled to the borough English portion. The socage portion, however, was much larger than the borough English portion. The gravelkind tenure was equally divisible between the two sons and the personal estate was divisible between the widow and the two sons in equal shares. The widow was also entitled to the dower and free bench out of the real estates.