Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)
Lachhmi Narain Balu vs Ghisa Bihari And Anr. on 19 March, 1959 cites

Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi vs Parath Nath on 20 July, 1934

"They (their Lordships) think that Ruld1 of Order XLVII must be read as in itself definitive of the limits within which review is today permitted, and the reference to practice under former and different statutes is misleading. So construing it, they interpret the words 'any other sufficient reason as meaning a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously." This view was reiterated in Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi v. Parath Nath, AIR 1934 PC 213.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 70 - Full Document

Kunwar Basant Singh vs Kunwar Brijraj Saran Singh on 17 May, 1935

(3) M. Ram Sarup next contended that my attention at the time of the hearing of the appeal was not drawn to three very important decisions which, if brought to my notice, would have changed the fate of the decision of the appeal. The first of such authorities to which he has drawn my attention is Basant Singh v. Brij Raj Saran Singh, AIR 1935 PC 132, in which it is laid down that the restriction that adoptee should be of the same gotra is only a recommendation, and a person of a different gotra may be adopted by doctrine of factum valet.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 46 - Full Document

Hem Singh And Another vs Harnam Singh And Another on 1 April, 1954

This was a case of Jats of Ballabgarh. The counsel submits that the ratio of this case which construes the restriction on the adoptee being of the same gotra as merely recommendatory should be applied in constraining the entry in the instant case to be also merely directory and not mandatory. The second case to which my attention has bee drawn is Hem Singh v. Harnam Singh, AIR 1954 SC 581, in which the Privy Council's observation is approved and it is observed that the rules relating to ceremonies and to preferences in selection should be held to be directory and adoptions made in disregard of them are not to be considered invalid.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - G Hasan - Full Document

Rajendra Prasad Boso vs Gopal Prasad Sen on 26 June, 1930

In view of the Privy Council authorities in ILR 3 Lah 127: (AIR 1922 PC 112) and AIR 1934 PC 213, it is hardly necessary to discuss the various decisions of the High Courts cited by Mr. Ram Sarup in support of his contention, that the point being of great public importance I should reopen the decision on the merits. The history of Ahirs as contained in the Gazetteer of Gurgaon District is, in this view of the matter, also not relevant. I asked Mr. Ram Sarup if he had any direct decision, dealing with the power of a widow to adopt to her deceased husband, in which the power conferred was liberally construed as is contended by him; he was, however, unable to cite any such authority. As held in Rajendra Prasad v. Gopal Prasad, AIR 1930 PC 242, at page 245 "it is well established law in India that authority given to a wife to adopt has to be strictly pursued".
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 24 - Full Document
1