Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.60 seconds)
Shanti Mal vs Smt. Savitri Devi on 9 July, 1999 cites

Maniram vs Seth Rupchand on 25 May, 1906

In the case of Maniram v. Seth Rupchand (supra), the admission contained in the application for grant of probate filed by Rupchand and two others, was not addressed to Maniram or his natural father Kishandas who had opposed the application for grant of probate. However, Maniram was represented by his natural father Kishandas and a copy of application for grant of probate must have been supplied to him because he had opposed the same and, therefore, it is proper to infer that the application made by Rupchand and two others had been communicated to Maniram through his father Kishandas. This admission had been communicated to Maniram indirectly without addressing the same to him. In these circumstances, when it was contended before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee that the admission was not addressed to Maniram or his agent, their Lordships rejected the arguments by observing that explanation (1) in Section 19 did not make it necessary. Thus, the observations "the acknowledgment is not addressed to the person entitled but according to the explanation given in Section 19 this is not necessary", must be read in the context of the facts of that case. As pointed above, in the case before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee, the admission by Rupchand and two others had been communicated to Maniram through his father Kishandas who opposed the application for grant of probate and, therefore, the admission made by Rupchand and two others had been made to Maniram through his father Kishandas though it was not addressed to him. The question before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee was whether the admission made by Rupchand in his application for grant of probate could be used for Section 19 of the Limitation Act on the ground that it had been made to Maniram through his father Kishandas but was no a addressed to either of them. Their Lordships observed that in view of explanation given in Section 19 it was not necessary that the acknowledgment should have been addressed to Maniram. The question whether an explanation given in Section 19, merely dispense with the necessity of addressing the acknowledgment to the person or the agent of any person or completely dispenses with the necessity of communicating or making the acknowledgment to that person or the agent of the person claiming right or property, was neither raised before their Lordships of the Judicial Committee nor this question was answered by their Lordships.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 104 - Full Document
1   2 Next