Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Beejraj Vs. Bhyropersaud

Beejraj vs Bhyropersaud

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 25, 1896
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/867595

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil;Property

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Practice - Suit, Revival of--Civil Procedure Code (Act XIV of 1882), Section 372--Succession Certificate Act (VII of 1889), Section 4--Succession--Survivorship--Mitakshara Law. -

Key legal issue
Civil;Property

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Beejraj

Respondent

Bhyropersaud

Legal References

Cases Referred
Raghavendra Madhav v. Bhima I.L.R.
Reported In
(1896)ILR23Cal912

Excerpt

practice - suit, revival of--civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 372--succession certificate act (vii of 1889), section 4--succession--survivorship--mitakshara law. - amber ali, j.1. this is an application on summons for revival of a suit on the death of the plaintiff. the defendant's attorney contends that the applicants, not having obtained letters of administration, or a certificate under act vii of 1889, are not entitled to ask that the suit may be revived as against them. in my opinion it is not necessary that either letters of administration, or a certificate under act vii of 1889, should be obtained in order to. entitle the applicants to ask that they may be permitted to proceed with this suit. they are members of a. mitakshara family, of which the deceased plaintiff was a managing member. as such, they bad, jointly with the deceased, a subsisting interest in the subject-matter of the suit. it follows that, on the death of the plaintiff, his interest parsed to them by survivorship, and not by succession. this view is in accordance with the decision of the bombay high court in the case of raghavendra madhav v. bhima i.l.r. 16 bom. 349.2. the present case, however, is unprovided for, except by section 372 of the-civil procedure code. the application, therefore, should have been in the form indicated in that section, namely, that the suit be continued by the applicants. i shall proceed under that section and make an order for the continuance of the suit by the applicants.

Full Judgment

Amber Ali, J.

1. This is an application on summons for revival of a suit on the death of the plaintiff. The defendant's attorney contends that the applicants, not having obtained letters of administration, or a Certificate under Act VII of 1889, are not entitled to ask that the suit may be revived as against them. In my opinion it is not necessary that either letters of administration, or a certificate under Act VII of 1889, should be obtained in order to. entitle the applicants to ask that they may be permitted to proceed with this suit. They are members of a. Mitakshara family, of which the deceased plaintiff was a managing member. As such, they bad, jointly with the deceased, a subsisting interest in the subject-matter of the suit. It follows that, on the death of the plaintiff, his interest parsed to them by survivorship, and not by succession. This view is in accordance with the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Raghavendra Madhav v. Bhima I.L.R. 16 Bom. 349.

2. The present case, however, is unprovided for, except by Section 372 of the-Civil Procedure Code. The application, therefore, should have been in the form indicated in that section, namely, that the suit be continued by the applicants. I shall proceed under that section and make an order for the continuance of the suit by the applicants.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial