Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 25 (0.22 seconds)
Rameswar Mandal And Ors. vs Provabati Debi on 27 May, 1914 cites

Braja Lal Sen vs Jiban Krishna Roy on 8 September, 1898

Upon appeal, the District Judge has found, first, that the loan was taken by the widow and the money borrowed was applied by her for payment of rent due to the superior landlord; secondly, that as laid down in Ashutosh Sikdar v. Behari Lal Kirtania 35 C. 61 11 C.W.N. 1011 : 6 C.L.J. 320, the sale was not void but merely voidable, because held contrary to the provisions of Section 90 of the Transfer of Property Act; and thirdly, that it was unnecessary to avoid the sale, because it had passed to the purchaser nothing beyond the limited estate of the widow, as laid down in the cases of Mohima Chunder Roy Chowdhry v. Sam Kishore Acharjee Chowdhary 23 W.R. 174 : 15 B.L.R. 142 and Braja Lal Sen v. Jiban Krishna Roy 26 C. 285 which was confirmed on appeal to the Judicial Committee: Jiban Krishna Roy v. Brojo Lal Sen 30 C. 550 (P.C.) : 30 I.A. 81 : 7 C.W.N. 425 : 5 Bom.L.R. 428. The District Judge has also overruled the contentions that the suit was not maintainable for a pure declaratory decree without consequential relief, and, was, in any view, barrel by limitation. In this view, the District Judge has modified the decree of the primary Court and has given the plaintiff an unconditional declaration that the execution sale does not bind the estate in her hands. On the present appeal, besides the two subordinate points last mentioned, namely, the grant of a declaratory decree without consequential relief and the bar of limitation, the substantial question which has emerged for consideration is, what was the true nature of the debt created by the bond, of the decree in the bond suit, and of the proceedings thereon and what was the legal effect of the execution sale on the estate in the hands of the widow.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Raja Rai Bhagwat Dayal Singh vs Debi Dayal Sahu on 4 January, 1908

P.C.J. 197 and Bhagwat Dayal Singh v. Devi Dayal Sahu 35 I.A. 48 : 35 C. 420 (P.C.) : 12 C.W.N. 393 : 7 C.L.J. 335 : 10 Bom. L.R. 230 : 5 A.L.J. 184 : 18 M.L.J. 100 : 3 M.L.T. 344 : 14 Bur.L.R. 49. Consequently, a person who claims title under an alienation from her must prove that there was legal necessity for it, that is, such pressure on the estate at the time the loan was taken or the alienation made as justified the act of the widow. He can also protect himself by proof of bona fide inquiry, and if the fact of such inquiry is established, the real existence of an alleged sufficient and reasonably credited necessity is not a condition precedent to the validity of his title. In the case before us, there is no proof of bona fide inquiry by the creditor, and further reference need not consequently be made to this possible aspect of the matter. The question then reduces to this, was there legal necessity for the loan? The mere fact that the loan was taken to pay rent and the money raised was applied for that purpose, is clearly not sufficient.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Jogul Kishore vs Jotendro Mohun Tagore And Ors. on 29 April, 1881

As the proceeding may be against the widow personally or against the widow as representing her husband's estate, the true test is to see whether the proceeding in which the sale was directed was brought against the widow personally or with a view to affect the whole inheritance : Jugul Kishore v. Jotendro Mohun Tagore 11 I.A. 66 : 10 C. 985 (P.C) : 8 Ind. Jar. 435 : 4 Sar.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 22 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next