Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.31 seconds)
Documents citing Basangowda Bin Virupaxagowda And Anr. vs Irgowdatti Kom Kallangowda And Anr. on 14 November, 1922

Ramjibhai Virpal Shah vs Gordhandas Maganlal Bhagat on 6 January, 1954

To the same effect are the decisions of this Court in -- 'Basangowda v. Irgowdatti', AIR 1923 Bom 276 at p. 277 (R) and -- 'Krishna Tanhaji v. Aba Shetti Patil', 34 Born 139 at p. 141 (S). Mr. Desai has attempted to distinguished these two cases on the ground that they deal with propositions which are subject to Hindu law. That, however, is Only one aspect of the matter. While these decisions were undoubtedly dealing with propositions of Hindu law, they also had to considerthe question as to what can be regarded as an alienation or transfer, it must, however, be added that the decision of this question would depend always upon the construction of words used in the decree. I do not, therefore, read these judgments-as laying down a general proposition that a compromise decree can never operate as a transfer.
Bombay High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

S. Chenchulakshmi Ammal vs A. Subramanian on 8 October, 1971

10. He then took into account the restrictions on alienation imposed under Ex. B-1 on the first respondent and held that he had no disposing power over the property within the meaning of Section 60 of the Civil Procedure Code. The learned District Judge quoted three decisions: Basangowda Bin Virupaxagowda v. Irgowdatti, ILR 47 Bom 597 = AIR 1923 Bom 276; Thakur Khitanarain Sahi v. Surju Seth, ILR 10 Pat 582 = AIR 1931 Pat 364 and Janaki Ammal v. Marudai Chetti, AIR 1937 Mad 864 and observed that, according to those decisions, since the first Respondent had only a life interest, the decree-holder was not entitled to bring the property to sale and would only have a right to have a Receiver appointed in respect of the income of the property. He further thought that it had to be one in a separate proceeding and dismissed the petition which had been filed for the sale of the property.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Shankar Kondappa Shahgadkar vs Ganpat Shankarshet Agarkar on 4 December, 1928

342 and Basangowda v. Irgowdatti (1922) I.L.R. 47 Bom. 597, s.c. 25 Bom. L.R. 293. The facts of those cases were quite different from those in the present one where a person creating the charge is a party to the decree. The defendant having agreed to create a charge by the decree, cannot turn round and in execution deny that the property was not liable to be sold in execution of the decree to which he consented.
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1