Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.71 seconds)
Chandradip Prosad vs Jagannath Agarwalla on 9 July, 1976 cites

Jawahir Singh vs Udai Parkash on 4 December, 1925

It should be noted that this decision was approved by the Privy Council in the case of Jawahir Singh v. Udai Parkash, 53 Ind App 36 : (AIR 1926 PC 16) but the point involved in this case was somewhat different. There the certificated guardian of the two Hindu minors sold certain properties belonging to the minors without the sanction of the District Judge, within three years of his attaining majority, the younger of the two sued to avoid the sale. The elder, however, had come of age several years earlier and had taken no steps to repudiate the transaction. Relying on that fact limitation was pleaded in defence to the suit and such a plea was overruled. It was held that non-avoidance of the sale by the elder would not bar the suit at the instance of the younger. In this context a suggestion was made at the hearing of the appeal that the elder may be considered to be the manager of the family to which the two brothers belonged and discharge at his instance would bind the minor. That plea was overruled and it was observed that "the powers of the Manager of a Hindu family are undoubtedly very extensive, but there is nothing in the present case to show that the plaintiff No. 1 ever acting as the Manager".
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Mudit Narayan Singh vs Ranglal Singh on 16 June, 1902

11. The other decision relied on by Mr. Ghose in the case of Mudit Narayan Singh v. Ranglal Singh, (1902) ILR 29 Cal 797 in our view, does not militate against the view taken by us. The principle that was laid down in that case was that even a younger member of a family can by consent be the karta. On the other hand, the texts recited in this decision go to support the view taken by us. Referring to 'Shankha' and 'Likhita' it was pointed out that "If the father be incapable, let eldest manage the affairs of the family or, with his consent, a younger conversant with business,"
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Kedarnath Kanoria And Ors. vs Khaitan Sons And Co. on 17 December, 1958

Therefore, unless it is otherwise proved that by a common consent a younger member is appointed karta it would always be reasonable to hold that in the absence of the father the eldest amongst the sons would be the karta of the family if it continues to remain joint. Such was also the view expressed by this Court in the case of Ganeshmull Surana v. Nag-raj Surana, though the said decision was overruled by the Division Bench on another point in the case of Kedarnath Kanoria v. Khaitan Sons & Co., .
Calcutta High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 17 - R S Bachawat - Full Document

Varada Bhaktavatsaludu And Anr. vs Damojipurapu Venkatanarasimha Rao ... on 2 October, 1939

On the facts of the case it is quite apparent that the elder even as the karta could not have given any valid discharge as the sale itself was established to be not for any legal necessity. In any event, the observation that the plaintiff No. 1 never acted as the Manager was the finding which was arrived at on the materials and on the pleadings before the learned Judge. The above observation, in our opinion, cannot be taken to be laying down any Rule that in the absence of any positive evidence to show that the seniormost male member of the family has been acting as the Manager the said fact could not be otherwise found from other proved facts and circumstances. This aspect, in our opinion, was rightly pointed out by the Madras High Court in the case of Bhaktavatsaludu v. Venkatanarasimha Rao, AIR 1940 Mad 530.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Ganeshmull Surana vs Nagraj Surana on 20 November, 1951

Therefore, unless it is otherwise proved that by a common consent a younger member is appointed karta it would always be reasonable to hold that in the absence of the father the eldest amongst the sons would be the karta of the family if it continues to remain joint. Such was also the view expressed by this Court in the case of Ganeshmull Surana v. Nag-raj Surana, though the said decision was overruled by the Division Bench on another point in the case of Kedarnath Kanoria v. Khaitan Sons & Co., .
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1