Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Annamalai Chetty vs Subramanian Chetty on 9 November, 1928
In that case reliance was placed on Ramkrishna Muraji v. Ratan Chand, AIR 1931 PC 136; Benares Bank Ltd. v. Hari Narain, AIR 1932 PC 182; Chochalingam v. Muthu Karuppan, AIR 1938 Mad 849; Annamalai Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty, AIR 1929 PC 1; and Raghbir Singh v. Ramrattan, AIR 1943 PC 40.
Brij Narain vs Mangla Prasad on 24 November, 1923
The third proposition in Brij Narain's case, 51 Ind App 129: (AIR 1924 PC 50), comes into play only when a decree is passed against the father and his share in the ancestral property is sought to be sold. But there must be a decree first and the decree cannot be for the enforcement of the mortgage because such a mortgage is void ab initio.
Jagdish Prasad And Ors. vs Hoshyar Singh And Anr. on 6 July, 1928
There has been some controversy whether the word 'debt' in the second proposition included a "mortgage debt". In his dissenting judgment Sulaiman Actg. C. J. answered this question in Jagdish Prasad v. Hoshyar Singh, (AIR 1928 All 596 (FB)) in the affirmative and that was approved in another (F.B.)
Sri Thakur Ram Krishna Muraji vs Ratan Chand on 27 February, 1931
In that case reliance was placed on Ramkrishna Muraji v. Ratan Chand, AIR 1931 PC 136; Benares Bank Ltd. v. Hari Narain, AIR 1932 PC 182; Chochalingam v. Muthu Karuppan, AIR 1938 Mad 849; Annamalai Chetty v. Subramanian Chetty, AIR 1929 PC 1; and Raghbir Singh v. Ramrattan, AIR 1943 PC 40.
Lachhman Prasad And Ors. vs Sarnam Singh And Ors. on 26 April, 1917
This is settled law and it would be sufficient to refer to Balgobinddas v. Narainlal, 20 Ind App 116 (PC); Lachhman Prasad v. Sarnam Singh, 44 Ind App 163: (AIR 1917 PC 41), and a number of other decisions collected in Mulla's Hindu Law in paragraph 269, where the learned author has stated the rule thus:
Article 13 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956
Hira Lal And Ors. vs Puran Chand And Ors. on 9 May, 1949
decision reported in Hira Lal v. Puran Chand, AIR 1949 All 685 (FB). The observations of Sulaiman Actg.