Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (2.99 seconds)Section 12 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Section 44 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Kamakshya Narain Singh Bahadur vs Baldeo Sahai And Ors. on 10 March, 1948
Meredith J., in Kamkashya Narain Singh
Bahadur v. Baldeo Sahai (AIR 1950 Patna 97) (FB)
(supra), has dealt with the English law on the subject and
has pointed out that Beaumont C. J. in Krishnadas
Padmanabhrao Chandavarkar v. Vithoba Annappa Shetti
(AIR 1939 Bom 66) (FB) (supra) was not right in his
appreciation of the English law on the subject.
Krishnadas Padmanabhrao Chandavarkar vs Vithoba Annappa Shetti on 2 September, 1938
Meredith J., in Kamkashya Narain Singh
Bahadur v. Baldeo Sahai (AIR 1950 Patna 97) (FB)
(supra), has dealt with the English law on the subject and
has pointed out that Beaumont C. J. in Krishnadas
Padmanabhrao Chandavarkar v. Vithoba Annappa Shetti
(AIR 1939 Bom 66) (FB) (supra) was not right in his
appreciation of the English law on the subject.
Talluri Venkata Seshayya vs Thadikonda Kotiswara Rao on 20 November, 1936
According to the learned Judge [Meredith J.] the
substantive right to an infant, on attaining majority, to
avoid a decree obtained against him owing to the gross
negligence of his next friend was undoubtedly
recognised in England from early times. T he Privy
Council in Talluri Venkata Seshayya v. Thadikonda
Kotiswara Rao (AIR 1937 P. C. 1) (supra) has also
pointed out that protection of minors against the neglect
acting of their guardians is a special one. In the instant
case, the High Court has proceeded on the basis that it is
permissible for a minor to file a suit to set aside a decree
on the ground of gross negligence on the part of his next
friend. We are in agreement with the said view.