Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Uma Chand Sett And Anr. vs Kanai Lal Sett And Anr. And Srimati ... on 18 April, 1921

Lallu Singh vs Gur Narain And Ors. on 25 July, 1922

13. A reference bas also been made to a passage in Ram Lal Sett v. Kanai Lal Sett 12 C. 603 at p. 668 : 6 Ind. Dec. (n. s.) 450 to the effect that gifts are of three kinds--those which convey a present title and interest, and a present right of enjoyment; those which are vested, that is, present in interest, but in which the enjoyment is deferred; and those which are contingent, that is to say, in which neither title nor right of enjoyment is given at present, but both depend upon future and certain events. All these kinds of gifts are admissible among Hindus, all are recognized by the Succession Act, the Hindu Wills Act, and the Transfer of Property Act. All these kinds of gifts may among Hindus be given subject to various restrictions, either inter vivos or by Will, and, speaking generally, the same law applies in either case." But this remark is certainly an obiter dictum.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Gur Narain vs Lallu Singh And Harbans Singh And Ors. on 25 July, 1922

13. A reference has also been made to a passage in Ram Lal Sett v. Kami Lal Sett (1886) I.L.R. 12 Calc, 663 at 668 to the effect that "gifts are of three kinds--those which convey a present title and interest, and a present right of enjoyment; those which are vested, that is, present in interest, but in which the enjoyment is deferred; and those which are contingent, that is to say in which neither title nor right of enjoyment is given at present, but both depend upon future and certain events. All these kinds of gifts are admissible among Hindus, all are recognized by the Succession Act, the Hindu Wills Act and the Transfer of Property Act. All these kinds of gifts may among Hindus be given, subject to various restrictions, either inter vivos or by will, and, speaking generally, the same law applies in either case." But this remark is certainly an obiter dictum.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kandarpa Mohan Gossain vs Akhoy Chandra Bose And Anr. on 23 August, 1933

This latter rule of construction was well expressed by Wilson, J., at the end of his illuminating judgment in the case of Ramlal Sett v. Kanai Lal Sett (1886) 12 Cal 663, in the words that he should be prepared to hold as a general rule that where there is a gift to a class some of whom are or may be incapacitated from taking because not born at the date of the gift or the death of the testator as the case may be and where there is no other objection to the gift, it should enure for the benefit of those members of the class who are capable of taking.
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1