Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)
Hira Lal And Ors. vs Puran Chand And Ors. on 9 May, 1949 cites

Jagdish Prasad And Ors. vs Hoshyar Singh And Anr. on 6 July, 1928

22. I have had the advantage of seeing the opinion of my learned brother Misra J. and agree with the answer proposed by him. The reasons given by Sulaiman A.C.J. for the interpretation put by him on the word "debt" in the second proposition laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Brij Narain's case A.I.R. (11) 1924 P.C. 50 in Jagdish Prasad v. Hoshyar Singh A.I.R. (15) 1928 ALL. 596 P.B., appear to me to be more convincing than those given by Mukerji and Boys JJ. This interpretation of the word "debt" is further strengthened by the previous case-law as examined by Misra J. in his opinion.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Brij Narain Rai vs Mangal Prasad And Anr. on 28 October, 1918

It is not contended that the decision in Brij Narain v. Mangala Prasad's case A.I.R. (11) 1924 P.C. 50 overrules Mt. Nanomi Babuasin's case 13 I.A. 1. In the latter case, by the phrase 'the creditors' remedies' Lord Hobhouse obviously meant the remedies by way of institution of a suit, of obtaining a decree in it and of selling the property in execution thereof. If the debt were not tainted, the son's challenge to the debt would obviously fail on the principle laid down by Lord Hobhouse whether it was secured by a mortgage or was a simple money transaction. That this is so is apparent from the following observation in the aforesaid judgment:
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Kesar Chand vs Uttam Chand on 30 April, 1945

17. It appears to me, however, that the re-cent decision of their Lordships' Board in Kesar Chand and Ors. v. Uttam Ghand and Ors. A.I.R. (32) 1945 P.C. 91 almost concludes the matter. There the father in a Mitakshara joint family executed a surety bond securing some ancestral property for payment of debts due by third parties without making himself personally liable. In enforcing the bond the doctrine of pious obligation was invoked in order to make the debt binding on a portion of the ancestral estate which was not covered by the security bond. If the proposition advocated by the learned Counsel for the plaintiffs-appellants were correct, the existence of security would have afforded a complete answer to the suit. Their Lordships, however, did not rest their decision on this ground. They refused to bind the property, because the bond made the debt realizable from the hypothecated property alone and created no personal obligation on the father. They observed that unless there was a debt due by the father for which the security bond was executed, the doctrine of pious obligation of sons to pay their father's debts could not be invoked.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Sahu Ram Chandra vs Bhup Singh on 9 March, 1917

He chose to consider only the decision in Sahu Ram Chandra v. Bhup Singh A.I.R. (4) 1917 P.C. 61 and the language employed by Lord Dunedin in Brij Narain's case A.I.R. (11) 1924 P.C. 50, as if (these?) cases constituted all the law on the point. The dissentient opinion of Sulaiman J., who presided over the Full Bench appears, if I may say so with respect, to be justified both on principle and authority.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 128 - Full Document
1   2 Next