Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.17 seconds)
Sm. Patta Kumari Bibi vs Nirmal Kumar Sinha on 14 January, 1947 cites

Lodna Colliery Co. Ld. vs Bipin Bihari Bose on 28 February, 1912

9. We do not think that the case comes within Article 48, Limitation Act. It was pointed out by Das J. in Lodna Colliery Ltd. v. Bepin Behari Bose 7 A.I.R. 1920 Pat. 383 at page 133, and his observations were approved by the Judicial Committee in Lewis Pugh Evans pugh V. Ashutosh Sen 16 A.I.R. 1929 P.C. 69 that Article 48 deals only with specific moveable property which falls under one of two classes, namely, (1) such property as has been lost or (2) as has been acquired by (a) theft, (b) dishonest misappropriation or (c) conversion.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Pattu Kumari Bibi W/O Rai Dhanpat Singh ... vs Nirmal Kumar Singh Nawlakha on 10 May, 1939

9 of the award. He further found that the plea of theft set up by her was a false one and that she was Still in possession of them and directed a Receiver to be appointed to take charge of them for safe custody and preservation. The defendant took an appeal to this Court, being appeal from Original Decree No. 229 of 1938. The judgment of this Court, which is reported in Potto Kumari Bibi v. Nirmal Kumar Singh ('42) 46 C.W.N. 333 was delivered on 2711-1941. This Court held(1) that Patta Kumari bad only a life interest in the ornaments etc, in respect of which the learned Subordinate Judge had passed his decree and that Nirmal Kumar Singh Nawlakhaya had a vested remainder therein; (2) that her plea of theft was a false one and that she was still in possession of them; (3) that a life tenant owed a duty to the remainderman to see that the subject is preserved, reasonable wear and tear being excepted; (4) that if there is a breach of that duty or if it established that there is a reasonable apprehension on the part of the remainderman that that duty will not be performed by the life tenant he is not entitled to immediate possession but the Court must make suitable orders for the preservation of the property during the life of the life tenant. In the circumstances of the case, the order made by the learned Subordinate Judge for the appointment of a Receiver was discharged. Some articles were left in Patta Kumari's possession and the learned Subordinate Judge was directed to appoint a Commissioner and to call upon her to produce the remaining articles before him, who on production was to make a list, to put them in a strong box and to deposit the box in the safe custody of a Bank to be selected by the learned Subordinate Judge. The date of the cause of action in that suit was stated to be 19-8-1936 when the plaintiff came to know of the false story of theft.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1