Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.26 seconds)
Chippagiri Nagireddi vs Venkadari Somappa on 6 October, 1942 cites

Lingangowda vs Basangowda on 3 February, 1927

In Lingangowda v. Basangowda (1927) 52 M.L.J. 472 : L.R. 54 LA. 122 : I.L.R. 51 Bom. 450 (P.C.), the decision of the Privy Council was based on the doctrine of res judicata. It was held that a decree obtained against the managing member of a joint family was binding upon minor members of the family under Section 11, Expl. 6, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, if it appeared to the Court that the manager was acting in the first suit on behalf of the minors in their interests. There the plaintiff in the previous suit was acting on behalf of himself and his minor children and was attempting to exclude a collateral branch from a share of the family property. If he had succeeded, the judgment would have enured to the benefit of the children, but as he had failed they had to take the consequences.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Sheo Shankar Ram vs Musammat Jaddo Kunwar on 12 May, 1914

11. The decision in the second of the appeals from the Allahabad High Court, Sheo Sankar Ram v. Jaddo Kunwar (1914) L.R. 41 I.A. 216 : I.L.R. 36 All. 383 (P.C.) was also given in a mortgage suit. The plaintiffs sued to redeem a mortgage after foreclosure on the ground that they had not been made parties to the mortgage suit. It was held that in the mortgage suit they were properly and effectively represented by the managing members of the joint family of which the plaintiffs were members. Their Lordships saw no reason to dissent from the Indian decisions that there were occasions, including foreclosure actions, when the manager of a joint Hindu family so effectively represented all the other members of the family that the whole family was bound.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 44 - Full Document
1