Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (1.32 seconds)Nanomi Babuasin And Ors. vs Modhun Mohun And Ors. on 1 December, 1885
385 following the principle of representation as enunciated by the Privy Council in Nanomi Babuasin v. Modhun Mohun (1885) I.L.R. 13 Calc. 21.
Premmoyi Choudhrani And Anr. vs Preonath Dhur And Anr. on 11 March, 1896
341 and Premmoyi Choudhrani v. Preonath Dhur (1896) I.L.R. 23 Calc. 636.
Punchanun Bundopadhya, Minor By His ... vs Rabia Bibi And Ors. on 18 June, 1890
In Punchanuh Bundopadhya v. Rabia Bibi (1890) I.L.R. 17 Calc. 711 a Full Bench of this Court took the same view in a case Under Section 244 of the present Code.
Chander Pershad vs Sham Koer on 24 November, 1905
But in Chander Pershad v. Sham Koer (1905) I.L.R. 33 Calc. 676 and the unreported case referred to therein, the view taken was the same as I am disposed to take. My answer to the first question in the reference is that the son is the legal representative of a deceased father and may be substituted on the record as such, and my answer to the second question is that the decree-holder may realise his decree by execution without recourse to a fresh suit against the son.
Ramkishore Chuckerbutty And Anr. vs Kallykanto Chuckerbutty on 3 December, 1880
In Ram Kishore Chuckerbutty v. Kallykanto Chuckerbutty (1880) I.L.R. 6 Calc. Morris and Prinsep, JJ., held that a decree against a Hindu widow representing the estate of her deceased husband could be enforced against the reversioner after the death of the widow, as the widow had not in the suit sought to recover any interest personal to herself.
1