Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.43 seconds)
Documents citing Shankarayya Balayya Pujari vs Champabai on 8 February, 1988

Sushilawwa D/O Tippanna Melappagol vs Gangawwa W/O Tippanna Melappagol on 11 November, 2024

13. Sri.Dinesh M. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of Babu Mother Savavva Navalgund & others vs. Gopinath5 and Shankarayya Balayya Pujari vs Champabai6 and Thamma Venkata Subbamma (Dead) by LR vs Thamma Rattamma and others7 do not apply to the case on hand, as in those cases the alienation is made by the coparceners whereas in this case alienation is made by the guardian.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt.Gangawwa W/O Tippanna Melappagol vs Smt. Sushilawwa D/O Tippanna ... on 11 November, 2024

13. Sri.Dinesh M. Kulkarni, the learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents would submit that the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel in the case of Babu Mother Savavva Navalgund & others vs. Gopinath5 and Shankarayya Balayya Pujari vs Champabai6 and Thamma Venkata Subbamma (Dead) by LR vs Thamma Rattamma and others7 do not apply to the case on hand, as in those cases the alienation is made by the coparceners whereas in this case alienation is made by the guardian.
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shivappa Ramappa Maregondra vs Ramapa Chandrappa Maregoundra on 8 August, 2013

The Hindu Law as stood then is to be seen. Under the Madras School of Mitakshara Law, a coparcener or the 'kartha' of the joint hindu family had no power to make a gift of even his undivided interest in the coparcenery properties. Such a gift made was invalid and void. This Court had an occasion to consider the effect of the gift of a coparcener property in the case of Shankarayya Balayya Pujari vs. Champabai reported in ILR 1988 Kar 2348. It was held that the manager cannot gift even his interest to any member of the family or to a stranger unless it is for a pious purpose to a small extent recognised by law. Such a gift becomes void as it is not permitted in law. Therefore, in the instant case, Basavanneppa, even if he has executed a gift deed as per Ex.P.5 on 09.03.1950 gifting his share in the : 15 : coparcenery property in favour of Ramappa, as the law stood then, the said gift is void ab initio. Therefore, under the gift deed, Ramappa did not get the 1/3rd share belonging to Basavanneppa. If the gift is held to be void, Basavanneppa having died issue-less as he was not married, his share in the co-parcenery property devolves on the remaining coparceners by survivorship. Thus, share of the remaining coparceners get enlarged by the death of Basavanneppa. Therefore, the schedule property being coparcenery and only two coparceners are remaining each one of them would be entitled to half share. Then, the plaintiffs, who represent one branch of coparcener, would be entitled to half share and the defendants, who represent another branch of coparcener, would be entitled to other half share in the coparcenery property. Therefore, the lower Appellate Court was justified in decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs for partition and separate possession of their half share in the suit schedule property. The judgment and decree : 16 : of the lower Appellate Court is legal and valid and is supported by the legal evidence, as such, it does not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference.
Karnataka High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - N Kumar - Full Document
1