Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (1.18 seconds)
Documents citing Rameshwar Babasaheb Paul vs Shivaji Emnathrao Paul & Ors on 21 January, 2019

Sunil Kalyan Bhale And Others vs Kamanabai @ Kamalabai Kalyan Bhale ... on 7 October, 2021

4. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Suresh @ Suryakant Shamsundar Darandale and anr. Vs. Praveen Balasaheb Darandale and ors.,[2014 (7) LJSOFT 59], wherein it has been held that "Hindu coparcener has right to sell at least his own share from joint family property and for that purchaser is not expected to prove that the transaction was made for legal necessity, however, as the legal necessity (3) ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2021 17:55:39 ::: sa-451-2019 with ca.odt is not proved the sale in respect of interests of plaintiffs in the joint family property cannot be recognised." Further, in this case, though in the sale-deeds it was mentioned that the seller was in need of money for medical expenses, but when no particulars of the medical expenses were given either in the sale-deed or in the evidence, then such legal necessity cannot be presumed. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision in Rameshwar s/o Babasaheb Paul Vs. Shivaji s/o Eknathrao Paul and others, [2019 (4) ALL M R 803], wherein it has been held that, "Evidence on record shows that the plaintiff, minor was exclusive owner of the suit land and no evidence was adduced that father was neglecting the child and child was in care, custody and maintenance of the mother, then the sale cannot be said to be for legal necessity or benefit of minor." Further, reliance has been placed on the decision in The Designers Co.- Op. Hsg. Soc. Vs. Udhav s/o Murlidhar Rasne and ors.,[2011 (1) ALL MR 346], wherein the duties of purchaser were highlighted and he was held that, "the burden would lie on purchaser to prove either that there was legal necessity in fact or that he made proper and bona fide inquiries as to existence of such appalling and pressing needs of the family."
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document

Sunil Kalyan Bhale And Others vs Kamanabai @ Kamalabai Kalyan Bhale ... on 7 October, 2021

4. Reliance has been placed on the decision in Suresh @ Suryakant Shamsundar Darandale and anr. Vs. Praveen Balasaheb Darandale and ors.,[2014 (7) LJSOFT 59], wherein it has been held that "Hindu coparcener has right to sell at least his own share from joint family property and for that purchaser is not expected to prove that the transaction was made for legal necessity, however, as the legal necessity (3) ::: Uploaded on - 13/10/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 16/10/2021 17:55:34 ::: sa-451-2019 with ca.odt is not proved the sale in respect of interests of plaintiffs in the joint family property cannot be recognised." Further, in this case, though in the sale-deeds it was mentioned that the seller was in need of money for medical expenses, but when no particulars of the medical expenses were given either in the sale-deed or in the evidence, then such legal necessity cannot be presumed. Further, reliance has been placed on the decision in Rameshwar s/o Babasaheb Paul Vs. Shivaji s/o Eknathrao Paul and others, [2019 (4) ALL M R 803], wherein it has been held that, "Evidence on record shows that the plaintiff, minor was exclusive owner of the suit land and no evidence was adduced that father was neglecting the child and child was in care, custody and maintenance of the mother, then the sale cannot be said to be for legal necessity or benefit of minor." Further, reliance has been placed on the decision in The Designers Co.- Op. Hsg. Soc. Vs. Udhav s/o Murlidhar Rasne and ors.,[2011 (1) ALL MR 346], wherein the duties of purchaser were highlighted and he was held that, "the burden would lie on purchaser to prove either that there was legal necessity in fact or that he made proper and bona fide inquiries as to existence of such appalling and pressing needs of the family."
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - V V Kankanwadi - Full Document
1