SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Cal) 78

RENUPADA MUKHERJEE, B.N.BANERJEE
HRISHIKESH DAS – Appellant
Versus
KHANTAMANI DASI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
AMARENDRA MOHAN MITRA, ARUNENDRANATH BASU, ASOKE CHANDRA SEN

B. N. BANERJEE, J.

( 1 ) ONE Girish Chandra Das, owner of considerable properties and a money lending business, died in the year 1918, leaving a will. Girish was survived by his widow Kalimoni, four sons Briudaban, Harish, Brisk and Suresh, and a grandson Hrishikesh by his predeceased son Nandalal. Plaintiff Khantomani is a daughter of Girish.

( 2 ) NANDALAL, Harish and Kalimoni had originally been appointed respectively executors and executrix to the will. After the death of Nandalal Girish published a codicil by which Brindaban, and Srish were also appointed executors.

( 3 ) THE executors Harish, Brindaban and Srish took out probate of the will and carried on administration of the estate. At all times material for the purpose of his appeal Harish and Srish acted as executors. Brindaban died in 1923.

( 4 ) DURING the period of administration of the estate by the executors abovenarned, Khantomani claims to have deposited with the executors, in or about the year 1933, a sum of Rs. 3950/ -. The executors accept such deposit for the purpose of carrying on the money-lending business of the estate.

( 5 ) IN the year 1939, Tapan (defendant No. 6), son of Brindaban filed Title Suit N


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top