Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.67 seconds)Ram Chand Ganesh Dass vs Sardara Singh And Anr. on 17 November, 1961
We agree with the view taken by Falshaw,
J., in Ram Chand's case.
Behari Lal Ram Charan vs Karam Chand Sahni And Ors. on 15 September, 1966
8) The said view was affirmed by the Division Bench of Punjab and
Haryana High Court in M/s. Behari Lal Ram Charan v. Karam
Chand Sahni & Ors.3:
Mrs. Hem Nolini Judah (Since Deceased) ... vs Mrs. Isolyne Sarojbashini Boseand ... on 16 February, 1962
“3. From a bare perusal of these two sections it is
apparent that the objection of defendant No. 1 on the
preliminary issue raised by him in the trial Court was
without any substance. Clause (a) of section 57 read
with sub-section (2) of section 213, it would appear,
applies to those cases where the property and parties
are situate in the territories of Bengal, Madras and
Bombay, while clause (b) applies to those cases where
the parties are not residing in those territories but the
property involved is situate within those territories.
Clause (c) of section 57, however, is not relevant for the
present purposes. Therefore, where both the person and
property of any Hindu, Budhist, Sikh or Jaina, are
outside the territories mentioned above, the rigour of
section 213, sub-section (1), is not attracted. Reference
was made by the learned referring Judge to a decision of
the Supreme Court in Mrs. Hem Nolini v. Mrs. Isolve
Sarojbashini Bose, AIR 1962 Supreme Court 1471, but
the parties in that case were Christians (to whom it is
agreed section 57 does not apply) and their Lordships
only considered the implications of sub-section (1) of
section 213 of the Act and not of sub-section (2) of that
section read with section 57 clauses (a) and (b).
Mrs. Winifred Nora Theophilus vs Mr. Lila Deane & Others on 10 July, 2001
9) In Mrs. Winifred Nora Theophilus v. Mr. Lila Deane & Ors.4, a
Single Bench of Delhi High Court held as under:
Clarence Pais & Ors vs Union Of India on 22 February, 2001
11) Learned counsel for the respondents also referred to the Supreme
Court judgment in Clarence Pais & Ors. v. Union of India6
wherein, validity of Section 213 of the Act was challenged as
unconstitutional and discriminatory against the Christians. This
Court held as under:
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Ganshamdoss Narayandoss vs Gulab Bi Bai on 12 September, 1927
5. There remains to be considered the decision of
Shamsher Bahadur, J., in the case mentioned above,
which is apparently based on the decision of a Full Bench
in Ganshamdoss Narayandoss v. Gulab Bi Bai, [ I.L.R. 50
Mad. 927.] . I find, however, on perusing this judgment
that what has been held is that a defendant resisting a
claim made by the plaintiff as heir-at-law cannot rely in
defence on a will executed in his favour at Madras in
respect of property situate in Madras, when the will is
not probated and no letters of administration with the
will annexed have been granted. This is clearly in
accordance with the provisions of sections 213 and 57(a)
of the Act, and the only point on which the matter was
referred to the Full Bench was whether a will could be
set up in defence in a suit without probate.
Seth Radhe Lal vs Ladli Parshad on 17 January, 1957
A similar view was expressed by
Jai Lal, J., in Sohan Singh v. Bhag Singh, AIR 1934
Lahore 599, and by me in C.R. 340-D/1965 (Radhe
Lal v. Ladli Parshad) decided on 24th August, 1965. Even
a cursory glance at sections 213 and 57 of the Act leaves
no room for doubt that the view taken by Shamsher
Bahadur, J., in the case mentioned above was erroneous.
Kesar Singh Sant Singh And Ors. vs Smt. Tej Kaur on 5 April, 1961
While referring to the decision of
Shamsher Bahadur, J., in Kesar Singh's case, Falshaw, J.,
observed that the view taken by Shamsher Bahadur, J.,
was apparently based on the decision of a Full Bench
in Ganshomdass v. Gulab Bi Rai, ILR 50 Madras 927
where it was held that a defendant resisting a claim
made by the plaintiff as heir-at-law could not rely in
defence on a will executed in his favour at Madras in
respect of property situate in Madras, when the will was
not probated and no letters of administration with the
will annexed had been granted.