Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.60 seconds)
Ramsumran Prasad vs Shyam Kumari on 31 May, 1922 cites

Tarini Churn Sinha And Anr. vs Watson And Co. on 19 May, 1890

In Tarinee Churn Gangooly v. Watson and Co. (1869) 12 W.R. (Civil) 413 the High Court at Calcutta had to deal with the case of a widow who was under age and had a minor son, and the Judges held that if she was properly represented in the suit they must treat the matter as standing precisely as if she had been of age, and had acted on her own behalf, that it was erroneous to look upon the transaction simply as an alienation by her, and that she had full power to compromise a suit or even to have entered into a compromise before the suit was brought.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Khunni Lal, Kanhaiya Lal And Sarnam ... vs Kunwar Gobind Krishna Narain on 28 March, 1911

In Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishna Narain (1911) L.R.38 I.A. 87 an agreement of compromise was made between the daughters of the pre-deceased son of a convert from Hinduism to Mahomedanism, and his heir at-law, by which the property was divided into certain shares between the daughters and the alleged heir-at-law. After the death of the daughters, the heirs in reversion claimed the estate against the derivative purchasers from the heir-at-law, putting their case in this way, that the heir-at-law's title came under an alienation made by the daughters without justifying necessity, and that therefore neither he nor his derivative purchasers could hold the property. This Board held that the compromise on its true construction did not mean an alienation, and that it wan not right to say that the heir-at-law or the derivative purchasers derived a tide from the daughters. It is obvious that to put it, as the respondents in that case did, that the purchasers derived title from the daughters, was begging the question. The property belonged to one or other, or possibly both, of the parties to the dispute, and the compromise proceeded upon the footing that it was uncertain in which of them the title was. As their Lordships put it, it was based on the assumption that there was an antecedent title of some kind in the parties, and the agreement acknowledged and defined what that title was.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 130 - Full Document
1