The Law Reports. Indian Appeals Volume 13; Being Cases in the Privy Council on Appeal from the East Indies (Paperback)


This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 Excerpt: ... on them the power to adopt, and the ' managers' were (1) Bajendro Nath Holdar v. Jogendro Nath Banerjee, 14 Moore's Ind. Ap. Ca. 67, 70. (&/ 742/6 &tj directed to hold on behalf of sons to be adopted; but th&t did not the less vest the estate in the widows until they had adopted. If they never exercised the power of adoption (and we may observe that they could not be compelled to adopt: Mussummai Pearee Dayee v. Mussummat Hurbunsee Kooer (1); Bamun Doss v. Mussummat Tarinee (2)), the managers would be relieved of their duties unless they were acting for the widows. The Subordinate Judge is wrong in stating that the widows were disinherited. That could not be, except in favour of some living being. They could not be disinherited in favour of some-one whom they might never call into existence. The fact, too, that the widows were registered with the managers as proprietors of the estates, shews that they were regarded, not only as joint proprietors, but as in joint possession. Next, if we look to the evidence, we find that very shortly afterwards the widows succeeded-in getting rid of the managers, and were recorded not only as sole proprietors, but in sole possession on their own account; and this is remarkable, because at that time they had exercised the power to adopt and had begun to dispute with one another regarding their relative rights in this respect. Under such circumstances, we cannot agree with the lower Court that the suits are barred by limitation, inasmuch as they have been brought within twelve years from the death of Badha Soondari, the elder widow, who survived Hurripria, the younger." Doyne, and Mayne, for the Appellants, contended that the suits were barred by limitation. Otherwise they stated that the evidence supported t...

R527

Or split into 4x interest-free payments of 25% on orders over R50
Learn more

Discovery Miles5270
Free Delivery
Delivery AdviceOut of stock

Toggle WishListAdd to wish list
Review this Item

Product Description

This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1886 Excerpt: ... on them the power to adopt, and the ' managers' were (1) Bajendro Nath Holdar v. Jogendro Nath Banerjee, 14 Moore's Ind. Ap. Ca. 67, 70. (&/ 742/6 &tj directed to hold on behalf of sons to be adopted; but th&t did not the less vest the estate in the widows until they had adopted. If they never exercised the power of adoption (and we may observe that they could not be compelled to adopt: Mussummai Pearee Dayee v. Mussummat Hurbunsee Kooer (1); Bamun Doss v. Mussummat Tarinee (2)), the managers would be relieved of their duties unless they were acting for the widows. The Subordinate Judge is wrong in stating that the widows were disinherited. That could not be, except in favour of some living being. They could not be disinherited in favour of some-one whom they might never call into existence. The fact, too, that the widows were registered with the managers as proprietors of the estates, shews that they were regarded, not only as joint proprietors, but as in joint possession. Next, if we look to the evidence, we find that very shortly afterwards the widows succeeded-in getting rid of the managers, and were recorded not only as sole proprietors, but in sole possession on their own account; and this is remarkable, because at that time they had exercised the power to adopt and had begun to dispute with one another regarding their relative rights in this respect. Under such circumstances, we cannot agree with the lower Court that the suits are barred by limitation, inasmuch as they have been brought within twelve years from the death of Badha Soondari, the elder widow, who survived Hurripria, the younger." Doyne, and Mayne, for the Appellants, contended that the suits were barred by limitation. Otherwise they stated that the evidence supported t...

Customer Reviews

No reviews or ratings yet - be the first to create one!

Product Details

General

Imprint

Rarebooksclub.com

Country of origin

United States

Release date

May 2012

Availability

Supplier out of stock. If you add this item to your wish list we will let you know when it becomes available.

First published

May 2012

Authors

Dimensions

246 x 189 x 4mm (L x W x T)

Format

Paperback - Trade

Pages

66

ISBN-13

978-1-236-38295-5

Barcode

9781236382955

Categories

LSN

1-236-38295-1



Trending On Loot