Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.18 seconds)
Brij Narain vs Mangla Prasad on 24 November, 1923 cites

Sahu Ram Chandra vs Bhup Singh on 9 March, 1917

14. There are, however some observations in Sahu Ram's case (1917) L.R. 44 I.A. 126 : s.c. 19 Bom. L.R. 498 which are not necessary for the judgment but which their Lordships are bound to say that they do not think can be supported. Founding upon them the learned counsel in this case argued in the Court below that no liability of the sons, based on the pious obligation to pay a father's debt, could be made available to the creditor while the father was still alive. Here again, if the point was open, there would be much to be said in favour of a position which seems consonant with common sense. But their Lordships are satisfied that a long train of authorities has settled the question.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 128 - Full Document

Badri Prasad And Ors. vs Gopal Bihari Lal And Ors. on 21 March, 1919

15. It is true that the point was not actually taken so far as appears in any of these cases, but when a long series of cases, extending over a long period of time, when parties were represented by eminent counsel are decided in a way, where if a plea, which was evident had been taken and upheld, the decision would have been the other way, there arises an irresistible conclusion that the plea was not taken because it was felt to be bad. The plea, however, was actually taken in Badri Prasad v. Madan Lal (1893) I.L.R. 15 All. 75, 79, 80, F.B., and was rejected by a Full Bench.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 11 - Full Document
1