Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 102 (3.16 seconds)
Documents citing Angurbala Mullick vs Debabrata Mullick on 3 May, 1951

Mahant Seema Dass vs Surender Kumar on 19 April, 2025

In this regard reliance is placed on Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick (supra). The Mahant can only dispose of property in the event of bonafide requirement and even then no such bonafide requirement is made out or mentioned in the sale deed. It is not explained as to why respondent no. 1 did not initiate eviction proceedings against respondent no. 2 during the lifetime of Mahant Akhil Dass. Appellant is the wife of Mahant Akhil Dass and at no point of time, he disclosed her that he had disposed of the property in question. It is the claim of the respondent no. 1 that Mahant Akhil Dass sold the property in question to him apart from many other property but it does not mean that a person who had sold 10 properties, must have sold an 11th property. It is stated that Mahant Akhil Dass had sold other properties but never sold the property in question. If the Ld. Trial Court was to give finding of collusion, same could have been given only after permitting the parties to lead evidence. The eviction order has been passed in favour of DH. It is mentioned in the order, JD has admitted the property to be a religious endowment and has further admitted that after Mahant Parveen Dass it was Mahant Akhil Dass who was collecting the rent from the JD, it appears that it was not disclosed by the JD that Mahant Akhil Dass had passed away in the year 2002. No reason or any explanation was given as to how in the year 1999 as alleged by the JD, the DH pressurize for Digitally signed by SANJAY SANJAY GARG GARG Date:
Delhi District Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Manathunainatha Desikar vs Sundaralingam And Ors. on 16 January, 1970

In the case of a shebait even where no emoluments are expressly attached to the office, he enjoys some sort of right or interest in the endowed property, generally right of residence, which partially at least has the character of property right--Angurbala's case in Gnanasambanda Pandara Sannadhhi's case (1900) I.L.R. 23 Mad. 271 : 10 M.L.J. 29 the statement of facts in the judgment of the Judicial Committee lends some room for such a view, for they say:
Madras High Court Cites 46 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Chattar Singh vs Subhash & Others on 7 January, 2011

(1979) 3 SCC 273, held that it was well settled that legal terms such as ―heirs‖, used in a Will must be construed in the legal sense, unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed by the testator and, consequently, as pointed out in Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick (supra) it must mean ―all persons who are entitled to the property of another under the law of inheritance‖.
Delhi High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 8 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Raj Kali Kuer vs Ram Rattan Pandey on 7 April, 1955

As has been stated by this Court in Angurbala v. Debabrata(2) and in The Commissioner, H. R. E., Madras v. Sri Lakshmindra Thirtha Swamiar(3) "both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest are blended together (in such offices) and neither can be detached from the other". It must also be recognised that in respect of such offices especially where they are attached to public institutions, the duties are to be regarded as primary and that the rights and emoluments are only appurtenant to the duties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 22 - B Jagannadhadas - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next