Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BENNET, J.
Maganlal Parikshawala - Appellant
Versus
Samson Shalom - Respondent
Decided On : 17-12-1937
JUDGMENT
Bennet, Ag. C.J.
1. This is an application by the manager of a temple which learned Counsel states is a public temple, and the application purports to be u/s 301, Succession Act. The application asks for the removal of the opposite party Samson Shalom, a Jew, residing in Cawnpore on the ground that he has committed embezzlement and should be removed from the executorship of a will. The will is stated to be dated 12th October 1912 by one Mt. Parbati Bai by which she endowed the public temple with a sum of money. Learned Counsel states that shortly after 1912, Mt. Parbati Bai died and the executors, of whom there were three, purchased certain Government promissory notes and it is alleged that the embezzlement has been committed in regard to this by selling the Government promissory notes and misappropriating the proceeds. Learned Counsel also states that a criminal complaint has been filed.
2. Now whatever the merits of the present petition may be, it is not a petition which in our opinion can be brought u/s 301, Succession Act. That section deals with the power of a High Court to suspend, remove or discharge any private executor or administrator. Now it may be that the will named three persons as executors but it does not follow that the use of the word "executor" in the will was correct. It appears to us that the will has set up a permanent trust and that the position of these persons named in the will was that of trustees. As they are trustees of property for an endowment of a public temple in our opinion the proper procedure would be to obtain sanction from the Legal Remembrancer and take proceedings u/s 92, Civil P.C. The present application is therefore dismissed.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
