Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.70 seconds)
Documents citing Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai And Others vs Desai Mallappa And Others on 9 February, 1961

Sri Ranganatham vs Sri Subramaniam on 15 December, 2023

40. The decision in the case of Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and another Vs. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa and another referred supra, lays down that "self acquisition of coparcener blending the same with the joint family property for the acquisition of the property by the Manager, such acquirer has to prove that it was his self acquired property". Obviously, the above decision is also not of much relevance to the case of the appellant as it is not his case that Venkataswamy was the manager of the family.
Karnataka High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri Lokesh vs Smt Nirmala on 13 January, 2026

Had she been a limited owner, she could not have put these properties into a common hotchpot vide MALESSAPPA BANDEPPA vs. DESAI MALLAPPA, (1962) 2 SCJ 589. Added, to invoke this doctrine, the family need not be shown to have other property, with which blending can logically take place. Thus, the invocation of section 14 of the 1956 Act strengthens the case of the Respondents than that of the Appellants in view of the above discussion.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - S R Kumar - Full Document

Sri. T. Narayana Reddy vs Smt. Nirmala on 19 February, 2024

Had she been a limited owner, she could not have put these properties into a common hotchpot vide MALESSAPPA BANDEPPA vs. DESAI MALLAPPA, (1962) 2 SCJ 589. Added, to invoke this doctrine, the family need not be shown to have other property, with which blending can logically take place. Thus, the invocation of section 14 of the 1956 Act strengthens the case of the Respondents than that of the Appellants in view of the above discussion.
Karnataka High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - K S Dixit - Full Document

Sri. Praveena vs Shekarappa on 1 September, 2023

13. The counsel also relied upon the judgment in MALLESAPPA BANDEPPA DESAI AND ANR. VS. DESAI MALLAPPA ALIAS MALLESAPPA AND ANR. reported in AIR 1961 SC 1268 with regard to applicability of doctrine of blending Woman's property with joint family property and doctrine is also explained that, it cannot be applied to case of 13 Hindu female inheriting immovable property from her father as limited owner. The counsel also brought to notice of this Court Para Nos.6 and 7, wherein the Apex Court observed that the claim of the appellant's in respect of this property is based on the principle of blending or throwing into the common stock which is recognized by Hindu law. The counsel further brought to notice of this Court Para No.11, wherein also an observation is made that there can be no doubt that the conduct on which a plea of blending is based must clearly and unequivocally show the intention of the owner of the separate property.
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - H P Sandesh - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Mysore vs Sita Bhateja on 27 June, 1972

In Mallesappa Bandappa Desai v. Desai Mallappa Alias mallesappa , the Supreme court held that where a member of the joint Hindu family blended his self-acquired property with property of joint family, either by bringing his self-acquired proerty into a joint family account or by bringing joint family property into his separate account, the effect was that all the property so blended became joint family property. But it was of the opinion that the said view would not be applicable to a case of Hindy female even though she was a member of joint family. In arriving at the above conclusion, the Supreme Court observed as follows :
Karnataka High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sri Goidu S/O Krishna Gouda vs Sri Iru on 9 December, 2024

In Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa [AIR 1961 SC 1268] this Court held that where a manager claims that any immovable property has been acquired by him with his own separate funds and not with the help of the joint family funds of which he was in possession and charge, it is for him to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence his plea that the purchase money proceeded from his separate fund. The onus of proof in such a case has to be placed on the manager and not on his coparceners. It is difficult to comprehend how this decision lends any support to the contention of the respondents that in absence of leading any evidence, the claim of Appellant 1 of the property being self-acquired has to fail. In the cited decision, the manager was found to be in possession and in charge of the joint family funds and, therefore, it was for him to prove that despite it he purchased the property from his separate funds. In the present case, admittedly, no evidence has been led by the respondents that the first appellant was in possession of any such joint family funds or as to value or income, if any, of Item 2 property.
Karnataka High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1