Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)Section 42 in The Specific Relief Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Kidar Lall Seal And Another vs Hari Lall Seal on 18 December, 1951
(c) Panchanan, co-plaintiff had also a right to maintain
the Suit because he was an her of Jogendra who was one of
the Shebaits nominated by the settler and on the death of
Jogdndra and Jogendra's wife, the Shehaitship had devolved
on him (Panchanan) (Reference was made to the decisions of
this Court in Kidar Lall Seal & Anr. v. Hari Lall Seal(6);
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material
Supply, Gurgaon(7); Nandurai Yogananda Lakshminarasimachari
& Ors. v. Sri Agastheswaraswami Varu of Kolakalur(8).
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal vs National Building Material Supply, ... on 17 March, 1969
(c) Panchanan, co-plaintiff had also a right to maintain
the Suit because he was an her of Jogendra who was one of
the Shebaits nominated by the settler and on the death of
Jogdndra and Jogendra's wife, the Shehaitship had devolved
on him (Panchanan) (Reference was made to the decisions of
this Court in Kidar Lall Seal & Anr. v. Hari Lall Seal(6);
Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material
Supply, Gurgaon(7); Nandurai Yogananda Lakshminarasimachari
& Ors. v. Sri Agastheswaraswami Varu of Kolakalur(8).
Iswari Bhubaneshwari Thakurani vs Brojo Nath Dey on 8 April, 1937
We do not want to burden this judgment by discussing the
various authorities cited by both sides. But reference to
only one decision, Sri Sri Iswari Bhubaneshwari Thakurani v.
Brojo nath Dey & Ors.(1) will be useful. In that case by a
deed executed in 1888, two Hindu brothers, R and B, created
an endowment in favour of the family deity, covering a large
number of properties, and provides that the right of
Shebaiti should go to their male heirs by primogeniture. In
1896, the founders conveyed additional properties to
themselves as Shebaits. The deed of endowment purported to
dedicate to the deity absolutely the Thakarbari and another
house which war, intended for the residence of the Shebait.
With regard to the rest of the property, the provision, was
that the Debuttar expenses should be carried on as before
with their income and that the surplus should be invested in
erecting masonry dwelling houses for the residence of the
donor's family
(1) (64) I. A. 203.
Hare Krishna Sen vs Umesh Chandra Dutt And Ors. on 26 April, 1921
In support of this contention, reference has been made to
the observations in Prayag Kumari Debi & Ors. v. Sisa Prosad
Singh(1); Mir Muzaffar Ali & Ors. v. Kali Proshad Sahar &
Anr. (2); Hare Krishna Sen v. Umesh Chandra Dutt(3); and
Bishnunath Tewari & Ors. v. Mst. Mirchi. (4)
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 44 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Article 133 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Bishunath Tewari And Ors. vs Mst. Mirchi on 6 May, 1952
In support of this contention, reference has been made to
the observations in Prayag Kumari Debi & Ors. v. Sisa Prosad
Singh(1); Mir Muzaffar Ali & Ors. v. Kali Proshad Sahar &
Anr. (2); Hare Krishna Sen v. Umesh Chandra Dutt(3); and
Bishnunath Tewari & Ors. v. Mst. Mirchi. (4)