Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.93 seconds)
Documents citing T.S. Swaminathaudayar vs The Official Receiver Of West Tanjore on 27 March, 1957

Bhagwati Lal And Ors. vs Bhorelal And Ors. on 1 March, 1974

In T.S. Swaminatha v. Official Receiver, AIR 1957 SC 577 the Supreme Court said that "while effecting a partition of joint family properties it would not be possible to divide the properties by metes and bounds there being of necessity an allocation of properties of unequal values amongst the members of the joint family, properties of a larger value might go to one member and properties of a smaller value to another and therefore there would have to be an adjustment of the value by providing for the payment by the former to the latter by way of equalisation of their shares. This position has been recognised in law and a provision for such payment is termed "a provision for owelty or equality of partition."
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Kedar Nath Sen vs Smt. Sulekha Sen & Ors on 26 February, 2016

While effecting a partition in respect of joint family properties it would not be possible to divide the properties by metes and bounds there being of necessity an allocation of properties of unequal value amongst the members of the joint family. Properties of a larger value might go to one member and properties of a smaller value to another and, therefore, there would have to be an adjustment of the value by providing for the payment by the former to the latter by way of equalisation of their shares. This position has been recognized in law and a provision for such payment is termed "a provision for owelty or equality of partition." (T.S. Swaminatha v Official Receiver, AIR 1957 SC 577) Freeman summarised the position in his Co-tenancy and Partition (1886 Ed., p. 676) as follows:-
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - S Sen - Full Document

Khyali Ram Etc. vs Mast Ram Etc. on 26 May, 1976

9. The second authority is T. S. Swaminathan Odayur v. Official Receiver of West Tanjore, (AIR 1957 SC 577). The facts are that in a suit for partition of properties belonging to joint Hindu family, defendant 3 was adjudicated insolvent under the preliminary decree and thereupon his assets including his share in partition vested in the Official Receiver. The final decree for partition passed by the High Court in 1938 directed the Official Receiver who represented defendant 3 to pay to defendant 6 (appellant before the Supreme Court) a certain sum with interest with a view to equalise their shares on partition and he was further directed to sell portions of the insolvent's estate in order to pay off the amount so decreed. In the meanwhile the Official Receiver had sold certain properties of the insolvent and realised certain amounts, T, a creditor of the insolvent who had obtained a decree against the latter ap plied to the executing Court for an order on the Official Receiver to bring into Court for payment to him a certain amount out of the sale proceeds. The appellant also applied for execution of the partition decree claiming that he was entitled to the entire sale proceeds as the partition decree had created a charge in his favour. These applications were heard together to which the Official Receiver was made a party. The executing Court held that a partition decree of 1938 had created a charge in favour of the appellant and that he was entitled to the sale proceeds in preference to T. The Official Receiver accordingly deposited Ra. 5,200/- in Sourt to the credit of the appellant. Thereafter the Official Receiver paid various sums to the appellant in respect of the amount due to him under the decree. On T's appeal to the High Court against the decision of the executing Court the High Court held on 5-11-1943 that there was no charge in favour of the appellant under the decree. In view of this decision the Official Recevier applied under Sections 144 and 151, Civil Procedure Code to the executing Court for an order that the sum deposited by him in Court to the credit of the appellant and the sums paid to the appellant might be paid back to him. It was, therefore held:
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Rajiv Sharma vs Narender Kumar Sharma on 27 September, 2023

Pertinently, while in T.S Swaminathaudayar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court was called upon to determine the status of owelty as a first charge on the estate, in Aloka Dudhoria (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court delved into the issue of fraud and interpretation of certain provisions of Partition Act. Needless to reiterate the said decisions would not be of assistance to determine the issue involved in the present proceedings.
Delhi District Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1