Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)
Harendra Nath Mukherji And Ors. vs Hari Pada Mukherji And Ors. on 11 April, 1938 cites

Hari Kishen Bhagat vs Kashi Pershad Singh And Bajrung Sahai ... on 2 December, 1914

It is settled law that to be valid as against the reversioners or to affect their reversionary right an alienation effected by Hindu widow can be supported only by proof aliunde that such alienation was made for valid and legal necessity and onus of establishing such necessity rests heavily on the person who claims the benefit of the transaction with a Hindu widow - Hari Krishen v. Kashi Pershad Singh (1914) 1 A.I.R. P.C. 90.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

Bijoy Gopal Mukerji vs Srimati Krishna Mahishi on 7 February, 1907

An alienation by a widow is not a void con tracer it is only voidable : Bejoy Gopal Mukerjee v. Krishna Mahishi Debi (1907) 34 Cal. 329. Now in all casel of voidable contracts there is a general equitable doctrine common to all systems that he who has right to complain must do so when the right of action is properly open to him and he knows the facts. If therefore a reversioner after he became in titulo to recover the estate to possession and knew of the alienation did something which showed that he treated the alienation as good, he would lose his right of complaint.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 138 - Full Document

Ramakka vs V. Nagesam on 7 September, 1923

19. The trial Judge has held that they are not entitled to get any decree for mesne profits as they did not adduce any evidence to prove the amount of mesne profits payable to them. The learned advocate appearing on their behalf could not satisfy us that the learned Judge was wrong. No evidence was adduced by the plaintiffs to show what profits the defendant actually received from the disputed houses after the death of the widow. The learned advocate on the authority of a decision of the I Madras High Court in Ramakka v. Nagesam con. tended that the defendant being admittedly in possession of the property, the onus was upon him to show what amount he actually got from the two houses after the death of the widow. In that case it was held that a. person who had a special knowledge of certain facts must prove them. Section 106, Evidence Act, says so. In that case it was also held that if a certain amount was claimed by the plaintiff as mesne profits on the footing that that amount the defendant could get from the property with due diligence, the onus was upon the plaintiff to prove what amount the defendant could have got from this property with due diligence. It is true that the defendant has adduced no evidence to show what amount actually he received during the period of his possession. The plaintiffs have also adduced no evidence to show what amount the defendant could have got from the properties. Under the circumstances it is impossible for the Court to determine the amount of mesne profits and the claim for mesne profits must therefore fail for want of evidence. The trial Judge was therefore right in dismissing the claim for mesne profits. The cross-objections, so far as mesne profits are concerned, are therefore dismissed.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1