Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.78 seconds)
Lalta Prasad And Ors. vs Gajadhar Shukul And Ors. on 23 December, 1932 cites

Bankey Lal And Ors. vs Durga Prasad And Ors. on 13 April, 1931

6. As it is now admitted that Raj Kumar Lal was also the manager of the joint family, it is not necessary for the decision of the appeal before us to decide whether it is essential for the application of the doctrine of pious obligation that the debt must be of a father who is also the manager of the joint family, and therefore the expression of opinion on the point must necessarily be in the nature of an obiter dictum, but as the point has been argued at length before us, I do not feel justified in not giving expression to my views on the subject. It is conceded by the learned Counsel that there is no direct authority in support of the propositions propounded by him, but he maintains that his contention is countenanced by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad AIR 1924 P.C. 50 and by certain observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Binda Prasad v. Raj Ballabh Sahai AIR 1926 All 220 and in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bankey Lal v. Durga Prasad AIR 1931 All 512.
Allahabad High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Binda Prasad And Anr. vs Raj Ballabh Sahai on 11 November, 1925

6. As it is now admitted that Raj Kumar Lal was also the manager of the joint family, it is not necessary for the decision of the appeal before us to decide whether it is essential for the application of the doctrine of pious obligation that the debt must be of a father who is also the manager of the joint family, and therefore the expression of opinion on the point must necessarily be in the nature of an obiter dictum, but as the point has been argued at length before us, I do not feel justified in not giving expression to my views on the subject. It is conceded by the learned Counsel that there is no direct authority in support of the propositions propounded by him, but he maintains that his contention is countenanced by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad AIR 1924 P.C. 50 and by certain observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Binda Prasad v. Raj Ballabh Sahai AIR 1926 All 220 and in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bankey Lal v. Durga Prasad AIR 1931 All 512.
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Subramania Ayyar vs V. Rama Ayyar And Ors. on 10 August, 1927

14. These quotions from the judgment of the learned Ag. C.J., put it beyond doubt that the pious obligation of the son is not dependent on the father being also the manager of the joint family. Similarly the following observations of the learned Ag. C.J., support the view that the creditor's right to enforce the pious obligation of the sons is independent and irrespective of the father's right to alienate the family property. He observed that the liability of the sons for the payment of such debts cannot rest on the power of the manager to bind the family. It must rest solely on the pious obligation of the sons to pay their father's debts and further while dealing with the Full Bench decision of the Madras High Court in Subramania Ayyar v. Sabapathy Ayyar AIR 1928 Mad 657, his Lordships observed that on the other hand, Ayyar, J. proceeded on the supposition that it was not a pious obligation of the Hindu son to pay his father's debt, but rather the power of the father to sell the family property in payment of his debts, which should he made the basis of the liability. The learned Judge concluded, though the father's power of alienation and the creditor's right to proceed against the son's share are both based on the pious obligation of the son, still on a partition, what is put an end to is only the right of the father to alienate and not the right of the creditor. The reply may be that the Hindu law texts based the liability on the pious obligation itself and not on the father's power to tell the sons' share, and that their Lordships of the Privy Council also in all their pronouncements have put the liability on the same basis.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Brij Narain vs Mangla Prasad on 24 November, 1923

6. As it is now admitted that Raj Kumar Lal was also the manager of the joint family, it is not necessary for the decision of the appeal before us to decide whether it is essential for the application of the doctrine of pious obligation that the debt must be of a father who is also the manager of the joint family, and therefore the expression of opinion on the point must necessarily be in the nature of an obiter dictum, but as the point has been argued at length before us, I do not feel justified in not giving expression to my views on the subject. It is conceded by the learned Counsel that there is no direct authority in support of the propositions propounded by him, but he maintains that his contention is countenanced by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Brij Narain v. Mangla Prasad AIR 1924 P.C. 50 and by certain observations contained in the judgment of this Court in Binda Prasad v. Raj Ballabh Sahai AIR 1926 All 220 and in the Full Bench decision of this Court in Bankey Lal v. Durga Prasad AIR 1931 All 512.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 80 - Full Document

Ajodhia Prasad vs Data Ram And Ors. on 27 November, 1930

At p. 922 of 1931 A.L.J. Bankey Lal v. Durga Prasad AIR 1931 All 512 the learned Ag. C.J., is reported to have observed that if the debt is contracted by the father then whether he is the manager or not, the Courts (below) have recognized that there is a pious obligation on his sons to pay the debt, even though the debt is a separate debt, taken by the father for his own personal purpose and while dealing at p. 929 with the decision in Ajodhya Prasad v. Data Ram AIR 1931 All 131, he observed that we however went on to observe, which was in the nature of an obiter dietum that as the father was not the manager the case did not come within the scope of any of the propositions laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Brij Narain v. Mangala prasad AIR 1924 P.C. 50. We thought that in principle it seemed to follow that, in the absence of any express authority to the contrary, the interest of the minor grandsons could not be held liable for the personal debt of the father when the grandfather was alive and was the manager. I must confess that on a reconsideration I now think that this observation was incorrect. My learned brother Young, J. concurs in this view. The propositions laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council relate to joint families and cannot be considered as giving an exhaustive list so as to exclude the liability of a separated son.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1