Koer Hasmat Rai And Anr. vs Sunder Das And Ors. on 6 March, 1885
In that case this Court has dissented from a decision of the Calcutta High Court in Hashmat Rai v. Sunder Das, 1885 1LR (II) Cal 396.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)Section 33 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Mt. Hamidan Bibi vs Nanhe Mal And Anr. on 18 June, 1931
Hameedan Bibi v. Nanhumal and Anr., AIR 1933 All 372. The said judgment is distinguishable on the facts of the case. In the said judgment the co-executants of sale deed filed a suit for its cancellation so far as her interest was concerned. In that case it was found that the plaintiff did not receive her share of partition price. In the circumstances it was held that there is no reason why she should not return the money, she has got and compensate other side, when she is being allowed to retain her property.
Madan Gopal And Anr. vs Sati Prasad And Anr. on 12 April, 1917
The aforesaid judgment given in the case of Madan Gopal (supra), is nearer to the facts of the case in hand. The present suit was also brought by the sons of Ram Nath and other family members, therefore where alienation by the father is set aside at the instance of the son on the ground that it is neither for legal necessity nor for antecedent debt, sons are entitled to have set aside without its being made a condition that they should refund by the consideration paid by allienee to the father.
1