Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)Muttyjan And Ors. vs Ahmed Ally And Ors. on 10 February, 1882
The Calcutta High Court in Muttyjan v. Ahmed Ally(")
accepted the third view and regarded a suit filed by a
creditor to recover a debt due from the estate of a deceased
muslim debtor as an administration-action.
Chaturbujadoss Kushaldoss And Sons vs Minor Rajamanicka Mudali By Father And ... on 1 May, 1930
that the share of Nabibaksh in the equity of redemption in
the property sold in execution of the decree in suit No. 372
of 1879 being bound by the sale, was irredeemable. It is
true that Nabibaksh died after the suit for recovery of the
debt was instituted and his heirs were brought on the record
under a procedure similar to O. 22 r. 4 of the Code of the
Civil Procedure. But the Judicial Committee did not express
the view that the estate was represented because the heirs
were brought on record after the death of Nabibaksh in a
pending suit, but apparently on the principle on which the
Madras High Court in Chaturbujadoss Kushaldoss & Sons'
case(1) proceeded.
Musammat Sughra Begam, Major And Ors. vs Mohammad Mir Khan on 15 December, 1920
The last view has been uniformly expressed by the Allahabad
High Court since it was first enunciated by Mahmood J., in
Jafri Begam's case(1). It may be observed that the Bombay
High Court in later decisions has accepted this view :
Shunmugham Chettiar vs K.A. Govindasami Chettiar And Ors. on 27 March, 1952
In a recent judgment of the Madras High Court in Shunmughom
Chettiar v. K. A. Govindasami Chettiar and others(3) it was
held that where after the death-of the mortgagor, in a suit
on the mortgage, the mortgagee bona fide and "after due care
and'
(1) I.L.R. 54 Mad. 212. (2) I.L.R. [1950] Cutt. 413.
(3) A.I.R. 1961 Mad. 428.
Section 2 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Sarat Chandra Deb And Ors. vs Bichitrananda Sahu And Ors. on 1 March, 1950
This view was also expressed by the High
Court of Orissa in Sarat Chandra Deb and others v.
Bichitrananda Sahu and others(2), where Jagannadhadas, J.,
observed that where proceedings taken bona fide by the
creditor against the person actually in possession by virtue
of the assertions of a claim to succeed to or represent the
estate of the deceased'; debtor are binding against the real
legal heir, whether such proceedings were commenced or
continued against the wrong person, and irrespective of any
express or implied decision by the Court that the ,person so
impleaded was the proper legal representative. The Court in
that case recognised that though the title of a persons to
property cannot normally be affected by any proceeding to
which he is not a party, his interest in the property may
still be bound if he may having regard to the circumstances,
be said to, have been sufficiently represented in the
proceeding. The learned judge observed at p. 445:
Abbas Naskar And Anr. vs Chairman, District Board And Ors. on 23 July, 1931
It was
observed in Abbas Naskar's case(") that in the case of an
estate of a muslim dying intestate if there has been no
distribution of the estate, and the suit is instituted for
recovery of a debt the creditor may sue any heir in
possession of the whole or part of the estate without
joining the other heirs as defendants, for realisation of
the entire debt passed in such a suit may be enforceable
against all the assets that are in his possession. But a
decree for administration may only be passed where the heirs
who are sued are in possession of the whole or any part of
the estate so as to be liable to account for the same to the
rest, or in other words, the suits were against some of the
heirs, who are in possession of property exceeding their
share of the inheritance: where the heirs are in possession
of the respective shares of inheritance, the principle can
have no
(1) 24 W.R. 3.
Bhagirthibai Kom Mahadev Abhyankar vs Roshanbi Kom Mahomed Hanif And Ors. on 28 August, 1918
Bhagirthibai v. Roshanbi (2 ) : Shahasaheb v. Sadashiv(3):
Shahasaheb Mard Sabdaralli And Ors. vs Sadashiv Supdu on 3 December, 1918
Bhagirthibai v. Roshanbi (2 ) : Shahasaheb v. Sadashiv(3):