Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.22 seconds)Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976
(20) The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon some authorities for the purpose of showing that the family arrangement could be arrived at for the purpose of resolving present or future possible disputes or for keeping peace or harmony in the family. Those authorities are Maturi Pullaiah and another v. Maturi Narasimhan and others , Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, and Ram Charan Das v, Girja Nandini Devi and others, . The aforesaid authorities related to family arrangement to the title of the property and not to an arrangement regarding right to manage a property by one of the junior coparceners during his entire life time to the exclusion of the karta.
Union Of India vs Sree Ram Bohra And Others on 29 January, 1965
(21) However, the following was held in Union of India vs. Shree Ram Bohra and others, (relevant observations' are in paragraph 14) : "TWOpersons' may look after the affairs of a joint Hindu family on the basis of the members of the joint Hindu family clothing with authority to represent the family. They would be two persons entitled to represent the family and their power to represent would depend on the terms of the authority conferred on them by the members of the joint Hindu family. Their authority to act for the family is not derived under any principle of Hindu Law, but is based on the members of the joint Hindu family conferring certain authority on them."
M.N. Aryamurthy And Anr. vs M.D. Subbaraya Setty (Dead) Through L. ... on 20 September, 1971
In H. N. Aryamurthi and another v. M. L. Subharaya Setty, , it was held that when one of the signatories of a family settlement was a minor it was not a binding arrangement.
Gopal Krishan Kapoor vs Ramesh Chander Nijhawan And Ors. on 23 May, 1973
He also relied upon Agricultural Engineering Co. Vs. Birla Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills, 1971 R.L.R. (Note) 36(4) and judgment of Justice H. L. Anand of Delhi High Court in Gopal Krishan Kapur Vs. Ramesh Chander, 1973 R.L.R. 542(5). In 1971 R.L.R. Note 36, the following was held : "Prima-facie nature of the case means that on a perusal of the plaint, the Court must be satisfied that there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing and that the suit is not barred by any provision of principle of law and on the allegations made between the parties there is a probability that the plaintiff might succeed."
Sahu Madho Das And Others vs Pandit Mukand Ram And Another(And ... on 22 March, 1955
(23) The learned counsel for the plaintiff in the present case urged that there was a family arrangement between all the coparceners including defendant No. 1 as karta, that the plaintiff would be entitled to manage the Modern Industries during his life time, that the said allegation needed serious consideration and investigation, that the learned Additional District Judge had also found that there was some family arrangement on account of which the plaintiff was managing the aforesaid business since 1953-54, and that therefore, there was a prima facie case. The learned counsel also urged that it was not necessary that there should have been formal agreement in writing embodying the family arrangement and as held in Sahu Madho Dey and others vs. Mukand Ram and another , existence of family arrangement could be inferred from long course of a dealing. He pointed out that there were number of documents which indicated that the plaintiff was carrying on the business of Modern Industries much before the first power of attorney was executed in his favor on July 30, 1956 by defendant No. 1 which meant that the plaintiff was carrying on the business independently of any power of attorney and that he was managing the Modern Industries under alleged family arrangement.
T. V. R. Subbu Chetty'S Family Charities vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961
(24) The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon a judgment of a Supreme Court in T.V.B. Sabbu Chetty's Family Charities vs. Raghava Mudaliar & others, Air 1961 S.C. 797(7). In that case the following was laid down : "IF a presumptive reversioner is a party to an arrangement which may properly be called a family arrangement and taken benefit under it, he would be precluded from disputing the validity of the said arrangement when reversion falls open and he becomes the actual reversioner. The doctrine of ratification may also be invoked against a presumptive reversioner who though not a party to the transaction, subsequently ratifies it with full knowledge of his rights by assenting to it and taking benefit under an arrangement by which a Hindu widow alienates the property of her deceased husband would not, however, preclude a presumptive reversioner from disputing the validity of the said alienation when he becomes the actual reversioner. It must be always a question of fact a to whether the conduct of the said reversioner or which the plea of ratification is based does in law amount to ratification property so called."
Uttar Pradesh Co-Operative Federation ... vs M/S Sunder Brothers Of Delhi on 20 April, 1966
(26) The learned counsel for the plaintiff also urged that in an appeal this Court should not normally interfere with the discretion exercised by the lower court in the matter of issue of injunction. First of all, he relied upon a judgment of Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Co-operative Federation Ltd. vs. Sunder Bros. Delhi, . In that case a suit was stayed under Section 34 of the Indian Arbitration Act. It was held when a court had exercised a discretion of staying the suit the same should not be interfered with by the appellate court unless the exercise of the discretion appeared to be capricious or unreasonable. Reliance of the learned counsel of the plaintiff is also on a judgment of Supreme Court in the Saharanpur Co- operative Cane Development Union Ltd. and .
Section 11 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Maturi Pullaiah And Anr. vs Maturi Narasimham And Ors. on 1 March, 1966
(20) The learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon some authorities for the purpose of showing that the family arrangement could be arrived at for the purpose of resolving present or future possible disputes or for keeping peace or harmony in the family. Those authorities are Maturi Pullaiah and another v. Maturi Narasimhan and others , Kale and others v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, and Ram Charan Das v, Girja Nandini Devi and others, . The aforesaid authorities related to family arrangement to the title of the property and not to an arrangement regarding right to manage a property by one of the junior coparceners during his entire life time to the exclusion of the karta.