Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.17 seconds)
Dhara Singh vs Bharat Singh on 5 February, 1936 cites

Jagat Narain And Anr. vs Mathura Das And Ors. on 12 June, 1928

In this case there was no question of borrowing money to pay off a pre-emption decree and therefore the facts are somewhat different from the case which we are considering at present, but it is open to argument that this case has thrown considerable doubt upon the validity of the Full Bench case to which we have referred, namely the case in Jagat Narain v. Mathura Das 1928 50 All 969.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

Amraj Singh And Ors. vs Shambhu Singh And Ors. on 8 July, 1932

This Full Bench case in Amraj Singh v. Shambhu Singh 1932 ALJ 895 overrules the cases relied upon by the learned Subordinate Judge and that being so he ought to have heard evidence and to have found whether or not the acquisition of the property by means of the money raised by this mortgage was for the benefit of the family and of the remaining property. The defendant obviously desired to call evidence upon this point and as we have pointed out earlier had made a written application requesting the learned Subordinate Judge to hear the witnesses who were actually in Court and to fix a day for hearing the evidence of the patwari of the village. The learned Subordinate Judge, holding the view which he did, thought that no evidence could be of assistance and decided the case without any evidence whatsoever. In order to do justice in this case it is necessary to have a finding whether the acquisition of the property by defendant 2 was for the benefit of the family and the remaining property. In certain circumstances the acquisition might be for the benefit of the estate, whereas in others it might not. The learned Subordinate Judge must, of course, in arriving at his conclusion, consider the price paid, the amount of the property already held by the family and similar questions. No decision can be arrived at without hearing the evidence of the parties and consequently it is necessary also to frame an issue and have a finding upon this point.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

The Benares Bank Ltd. vs Hari Narain on 5 May, 1932

The learned Sir Muhammad Sulaiman, C.J., and King, J., were of opinion that the authority of the Full Bench ruling in Jagat Narain v. Mathura Das 1928 50 All 969 has not been shaken by the decision of their Lordships of the Privy Council in Benares Bank, Limited v. Hari Narain 1932 ALJ 714 though on the other hand we must observe that Mukerji, J. was of opinion that the authority of the Full Bench case in Jagat Narain v. Mathura Das 1928 50 All 969 had been entirely destroyed by reason of the decision in Benares Bank, Limited v. Hari Narain 1932 ALJ 714. As a Division Bench we are bound by the opinion expressed by the majority of this Full Bench and follow the law as laid down by such majority.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 53 - Full Document

Chatur Bhuj And Anr. vs Gobind Ram And Ors. on 30 January, 1922

It has been held in series of cases that where the pre-emption decree merely gave one the option of acquiring certain property at a certain price, he is under no obligation to obtain the property and, therefore, cannot jeopardize the ancestral family property in order to purchase fresh property. In view of these decisions, therefore, defendant 2 could not encumber joint ancestral family property to acquire necessary funds to pre-empt other property. The case is fully governed by the rulings in Shanker Sahai v. Becho Ram 1925 23 ALJ 204 and Chatur Bhuj v Gobind Ram 1923 21 ALJ 348, and, therefore, needs no comment. The ancestral property must, therefore, be free from the obligation of the mortgage, but there is no bar to prevent defendant 1 from realizing the amount of his debt due under the mortgage from the property acquired by defendant 2 in the village.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1