Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.22 seconds)Jaggeswar Dutt vs Bhuban Mohan Mitra on 2 February, 1906
2. Before we deal with the question of the legal effect of the dispositions contained in the Will, it is necessary to state that in the Court below an objection appear. to have been taken to the frane of the suit. It was argued, upon the authority of the decision of this Court in the case of Jaggeswar Dutt v. Bhuban Mohan Mitra 33 C. 425 : 3 C.L.J. 205, that the suit could not proceed against the defendant as she claimed a title paramount to that of the mortgagor in the mortgaged premises This objection was, in our opinion, rightly overruled because, as pointed out in the case of Bhaja Chowdhury v. Chuni Lal Marwari 5 C.L.J. 95 : 11 C.W.N. 284, the rule that the question of paramount title cannot be properly investigated in a mortgage suit is subject to exceptions. In the case before us, the defendant is the legal representative of the mortgagor, and if the property really belonged to the mortgagor she would be the proper person to besned. When sued by the mortgagee upon the assumption, it was obviously open to her to set up her own title. It would be an idle formality to compel the mortgagee to institute a suit for a declaration that the property belonged to the mortgagor, and to stay the mortgage suit till the disposal of that litigation. We must, therefore, treat the suit as properly framed and deal with the question raised as within its scope.
Amrito Lall Dutt vs Surnomoni Dasi And Ors. on 5 April, 1898
We are not unmindful that the judgment of Mr.justice Jenkins was reversed upon appeal on another point Amrito Lall v. Surnomoni 25 C. 662 : 2 C.W.N. 389, and the decision on appeal was affirmed by the Judicial Committee [Amrito Lall v. Surnomoyee 27 C. 996 : 4 C.W.N. 549 : 27 L.A. 138]. Mr. Justice Trevelyan in the Court of appeal conceded that a direction to accumulate would be valid if there was a present gift to support the direction to accumulate. We are, therefore, of opinion that the true position of Dwarka Nath was that of an executor and that he was directed to accumulate the income for a specified purpose, namely, for the marriage expanses of the son of the testator, Sasi Bhusan Chueker-butty.
Kanai Lal Sett And Anr. vs Ram Lal Sett And Anr. on 10 March, 1886
4. The second point, which requires consideration, is as to the alternative gifts intended by the testator. The Will taken as a whole makes it reasonably plain that the object of the testator was that her whole estate was to be applied for religious purposes, for the spiritual benefit of herself and of her husband, except in the contingency, namely, if Sasi Bhusan married within 10 years, the estate was to vest in the wife of Sasi Bhusan. The question appears to have been argued in the Court below, whether Section 99 of the Indian Succession Act, which is made applicable to Hindus by the Hindu Wills Act, is sufficient to validate these gifts, In our opinion, it is unnecessary to consider the effect of Section 99, first, because neither the rule laid down in the section nor the exception thereto really cavers the case before us, and, secondly, because, as pointed out in the case of Ram Lal Seit v. Kanai Lal Sett 12 C. 663, Section 99 would be applicable only in so far as it did not contravene any rule of Hindu Law [Jairam v. Kuverbai 9 B. 491; Anandrao Vinayak v. Administrator General20 B. 450]. The real question, therefore, which arises is, whether the bequest is invalid under the Hindu Law. On behalf of the plaintiff, it has been argued that there was no valid bequest, because the bequest here might be in favour of a person not born at the death of the testator.
Atri Bai vs Arnopoorna Bai on 28 March, 1883
Their Lordships, adopting and acting upon the clear general principle of Hindu Law that a donee must be in existence, desire not to express any opinion as to certain exceptional cases of provisions by way of contract or of conditional gift on marriages or other family provision for which authority may be found in Hindu Law." A. passage indicative of such authority may be found in the text of Vyasa and the comments thereon by Jagannath in his Digest (translated by Colebrooke, Book II, Chapter IV Section 2, paragraph 30). Reference may also be made to paragraphs 49 to 52 which treat of valid irrevocable gifts. From this point of view, no question can really arise as to the invalidity of: the bequest which may also be supported from another point of view. The decision of their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Bai Motivahu v. Bai Mamoobai Bai 24 I.A. 73 : 21. B. 709 shows that although the English Law of powers is not to be applied generally to Hindu Wills, yet a gift by a, Hindu testator of a power of disposition by Will over his estate is valid, and a gift to an. appointee in exercise of such power of appointment will be good, if he be a person in existence at the death of the testator.
Section 2 in The Probate and Administration Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Section 4 in The Probate and Administration Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Hindu Wills Act, 1870
Section 99 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Section 37 in The Probate and Administration Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
1