Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.29 seconds)
Bishan Narain And Anr. vs Om Parkash And Ors. on 22 November, 1951 cites

Chunilal Harilal vs Bai Mani on 21 January, 1918

"I must confess that I have felt great difficulty in understanding what the learned Judges in 'Chunilal v. Bai Mani', 42 Bom 504 really intended to decide, but most of their rather obscure reasoning is directed to the construction of Section 53, with which we are not concerned at the present moment. No doubt, Mr. Justice Beaman says (p. 509): 'On no construction of the words 'legal representative' can members of a joint Hindu family be brought within the definition now contained in our statute'. Mr. Justice Heaton says, that the sons do not fall within the meaning of the definition of 'legal representative'. No doubt, a survivor of a co-parcenary does not, in respect of the property which survives to him, represent the estate of the deceased co-parcener, but it does not follow from that that, where the survivor is a son of a deceased co-parcener, he may not be the legal representative of the estate of the deceased. It is almost inevitable that in every case the father must leave some property which belongs to him separately, even if it be only his wearing apparel. As indicated above, if there is no estate descended to the son, that, can be pleaded as a defence to the suit.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

Jamburao Satappa Kochari vs Annappa Ramchandrappa Kabbur on 9 August, 1940

In the Full Bench case 'Jamburao Satappa v. Annappa Ramchandrappa', ILR (1941) Bom 177, Ram Chandra, defendants' father, had executed in favour of Jamburao a promissory note for Rs. 5,000/- and the plaintiff brought a suit on the basis of the pronote alleging in the plaint that Ram Chandra was dead and that the defendants, his sons, were his legal representatives. The Assistant Judge took the view that the sons were not liable after the death of the father as his legal representatives, and an appeal was taken to the High Court and the matter was referred to a Full Bench and Beaumont, C. J. at p. 182 observed as follows:
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Lingangowda vs Basangowda on 3 February, 1927

17. A review of these authorities shows that on the death of a Hindu his sons who take by survivorship and his widow who takes under the statute are legal representatives. If the sons or other coparceners are held not to be legal representatives within the definition of that term in the Code of Civil Procedure, it will mean that when a suit is brought by a father or other members of a joint Hindu family or a suit is brought against him, on his death the proceedings will terminate and a fresh suit will have to be brought and if the suit is terminated in a decree this will be impossible because of the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Even where the suit has not been decreed, it will mean that some point will have to be litigated by the other corparceners or against them every time the death of a coparcener takes place which would be against the observations of Lord Phillimore in 'Lingangowda v. Bastangowda', 54 Ind App 122 at p. 125. I am, therefore, of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge was erroneous and that on the death of Sham Sundar Lal the application made by his legal representatives, i.e., the widow and his son Bishan Narain should have been allowed. As to what the consequences of this application on the merits of the suit would be or whether any other question would arise or would not arise I am not deciding in this appeal, nor do they arise at this stage.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Amar Chandra Kundu vs Sebak Chand Chowdhury on 23 March, 1907

8. Mr. Justice Patkar in 'Ganesh Sakharam'S Case', 55 Bom 709, relied on some judgment of the Calcutta High Court, firstly on 'Amar Chandra v. Sebak Chand', 34 Cal 642 F B. There a decree for money was passed against a member of a joint family governed by the law of Mitakshara. This decree was sought to be executed after his death against his son who took ancestral property by survivorship as legal representative. It was held that the son was the legal representative and might as such be brought in the record. At p. 653 Mitra, J. said:
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 15 - Full Document
1   2 Next