Advanced Search Results

Thomas and anr. Vs. Dr. Mathai and anr.

Court : Kerala

Subject : FamilyContract

Acts : Contract Act, 1872 - Sections 62; Evidence Act - Sections 45; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Sections 151 - Order 8, Rule 9

Reported in : 2009(1)KLJ16

sides to have an amicable settlement of the issue considering the parties' relationship and also their social status, family prestige and reputation. I told both sides that a finding one way or the other regarding payment of … same parties in view of the statutory provisions enshrining principles of novation i.e. Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act was also accepted by the court below. Accordingly, issue No. 1 was answered in favour of the

Ramchandra Vs. Manikchand and anr.

Court : Madhya Pradesh

Subject : FamilyContract

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1877 - Sections 21

Reported in : AIR1968MP150

or against him. Their Lordships have further held that the contract by a manager of a joint Hindu family stood on a different footing. It was held:'A manager of a joint Hindu family which includes minors can

Baluswami Aiyar Vs. Lakshmana Aiyar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyContract

Reported in : 63Ind.Cas.374; (1921)41MLJ129

Sastri, J.3. The question referred to us for decision is 'where the managing member of a joint Hindu family enter into a contrast to sail an item of family property and that contract is not proved to

Anchuru Veerapa Naidu Vs. Gurijala Venkaiah Chowdari

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : FamilyContract

Acts : Registration Act, 1908 - Sections 17, 49 and 77; Hindu Law

Reported in : AIR1961AP534

delivery of its possession with past mesne profits.2. The plaintiff and defendant do not belong to the same family. Whereas the former is a member of Anchuru family, the latter belongs to Gurujala family. The following geneological … to writing, it nay not be possible to get direct evidence after several generations with regard to the contract that might have taken place between the ancestors of the parties. The matter therefore must largely depend upon

Madivallappa Irbhadrappa Vs. Mallappa Somappa

Court : Mumbai

Subject : FamilyContract

Reported in : (1926)28BOMLR711

has given rise to this appeal, was instituted by Madivallappa Irbhadrappa, as the manager of a joint Hindu family, to recover damages for a breach of contract. The plaintiff alleged that Basappa, the husband of defendant No.

Narayanan Chetty Vs. Muthiah Chetty (Dead) and ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyContract

Reported in : (1924)46MLJ575

for specific performance can be passed against minors. For instance, in the simplest and obvious case where a contract is entered into by a Hindu in respect of property which is not joint family property and the … reduced the defendant's loss from Rs. 1,000 to Rs. 500.' In this sense, it was beneficial to the family of the defendants Who were a trading firm in need of money rather than the suit property which

Jagabhai Lallubhai Vs. Rustamji Nasarwanji

Court : Mumbai

Subject : FamilyContract

Reported in : (1885)ILR9Bom311

the contract was entered into with the plaintiff in his individual capacity, and not on behalf of the family, there was nothing on the face of the contract to show that he was acting on behalf of

P.E.R.M. Annamalai Chetty, Joint Firm, Palni, Through Its Partner P.E. ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyContract

Reported in : AIR1939Mad538; (1939)1MLJ792

validity of similar transactions by other persons also who occupy an analogous position. The manager of a joint family governed by the Mitakshara, female owners in possession of inherited property, the head of a Mutt, and the … a decision as to the limits within which a natural guardian under Hindu law can incur a simple contract debt so as to bind the minor's estate. That such a guardian has the power to borrow by

Mahmood Khan and anr. Vs. Ayub Khan and ors.

Court : Allahabad

Subject : FamilyContract

Acts : Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 16; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 6, Rule 17

Reported in : AIR1978All463

defendants arises out of a suit for specific performance of a contract. The parties belong to the same family and descend from Ajib Khan, as would be evident from the pedigree, given below; AJIB KHAN ___________________________________|___________________________________ |

i. Nagiah Vs. A. Venkatarama Sastrulu and Seven ors.

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyContract

Reported in : (1914)ILR37Mad387

the first defendant. The suit is brought against the first defendant who is the managing member of the family and against defendants Nos. 2 to 4, his major sons, and defendants Nos. 5 to 8, his minor … 1. This is an appeal from the decision of the Lower Courts refusing specific performance of a contract of sale entered into by the first defendant. The suit is brought against the first defendant who is