Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (1.24 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. James E. Powell And Anr. vs Mr. L.B. Powell on 20 May, 1916

Smt. Jayashree Singh vs Smt. Achala Mohan on 16 January, 2023

15. Talking about the concept of intention to dispossess, Powell v. McFarlane [Powell v. McFarlane, (1977) 38 P & CR 452] was used as guidance in P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma [P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59 at p. 68, para 8] , wherein it is stated thus: (P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy [P.T. Munichikkanna Reddy v. Revamma, (2007) 6 SCC 59 at p. 68, para 8] , SCC pp. 70-71, paras 18-19) "18.On intention, Powell v. McFarlane [Powell v. McFarlane, (1977) 38 P & CR 452] is quite illustrative and categorical, holding in the following terms:
Delhi District Court Cites 46 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Musammat Kamer-Un-Nissa Bibi vs Musammat Sughra Bibi And Ors. on 11 April, 1917

If that community has been reduced to a single individual, it is impossible that the practice can any longer exist. It seems to us equally clear that once the property had come into the ownership of a single individual, that individual was entitled to dispose of his property to any one he pleased without its being subject to any right of pre-emption (unless the sale was made expressly subject to such right). We have already decided this same question in another case. See First Appeal No. 302 of 1910, decided on the 22nd of March 1912 Powell v. Powell. In our opinion the Court below was wrong in holding that ft custom of pre emption existed at the time of the sale in question. No doubt a custom might grow up again in the course of time, but there is no evidence to justify any such finding in the present case and this is not the finding ,)f the Court below. Nor can it be said that a contract between the co-sharers has been proved, In 1881 (when the latest record of pre-emption was made) the property was, as already stated, in the hands of a single proprietor. The fact that there is such a record appearing in the wajib-ul-arz of a mahal in the hands of a single proprietor is another instance that the entry in the wajib-ul-arz is not always trustworthy. Before finally deciding the appeal we must refer the second issue to the Court below, namely, whether the formalities required by the Muhammadan Law were performed by the plaintiff pre-emptor. This issue will be deemed to be taken in all three cases and the Court will decide the issue upon the evidence already on the record. The case will be put up on return of the finding before any Bench of two Judges.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

M.A. Abdul Malick Saheb vs T.P. Muhammad Yousuf Sahib And Ors. on 21 March, 1960

The donee must show (and the onus is upon him) that the donor was either emancipated or was placed in a position equivalent to emancipation by the possession of independent advice. (Powell v. Powell, 1900-1 Ch 343). Independent advice is not the only way in which the presumption can be rebutted. The donee must prove that the gift was the result of the free exercise of independent will.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

M.Jothi vs M.Vaideeswaran

In the decision on which the respondent has placed reliance on, viz., the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Salem Kannika Parameswari Devasthanam's case, (referred herein supra) referring to Powell vs Powell reported in (1860) P.R.I and D.209 at 212, held that revocation of Will would depend on the intention of the Testator and if done by the Testator or by his direction which, if amounted to an intention to revoke, would amount to a revocation. The presumption of law from that act of the Testator is in favour of existence of animus revocandi, but such presumption can be rebutted by evidence, showing that animus revocandi did not exists. Relying on the said decision, the learned counsel would submit that the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court, has recognised the principle of animus revocandi and therefore, necessarily the Trial Court would have to allow the parties to lead evidence, oral and documentary to show that the Testator has intended to 12/17 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 07/07/2025 01:25:52 pm ) CRP. PD. No.3386 of 2024 revoke the Will.
Madras High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Prashanth Krishna Singh vs G.C.Bohra Finance on 29 August, 2025

The donee must show (and the onus is upon him) that the donor was either emancipated or was placed in a position equivalent to emancipation by the possession of independent advice. (Powell v. Powell, 1900-1 Ch 243). Independent advice is not the only way in which the presumption can be rebutted. The donee must prove that the gift was the result of the free exercise of independent will.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - C V Karthikeyan - Full Document
1   2 Next