Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 163 (1.34 seconds)
Documents citing Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai And Others vs Desai Mallappa And Others on 9 February, 1961

K.Subbulakshmi @ Pappayee vs C.V.Ramasamy Pillai(Died) on 5 February, 2020

In Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai & Anr. V. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa & Anr. [AIR 1961 SC 1268], this Court held that where a manager claims that any immovable property has been acquired by him with his own separate funds and not with the help of the joint family funds of which he was in possession and charge, it is for him to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence his plea that the purchase money proceeded from his separate fund. The onus of proof in such a case has to be placed on the manager and not on his coparceners. It is difficult to comprehend how this decision lends any support to the contention of the respondents that in absence of leading any evidence, the claim of appellant No.1 of the property being self-acquired has to fail. In the cited decision, the manager was found to be in possession and in charge of joint family funds and, therefore, it was for him to prove that despite it he purchased the property from his separate funds. In the present case, admittedly, no evidence has been led by the respondents that the first appellant was in possession of any such joint family funds or as to value or income, if any, of Item No.2 property.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - G K Ilanthiraiyan - Full Document

Gowri Ammal And Another vs Vaithilingam (Decd.) And 10 Others on 18 June, 2001

"In the present appeal, by the unsuccessful plaintiffs, the first submission is that the conclusion of the courts below that item 2 of the plaint schedule properties was not a joint family property is wrong. The learned counsel brought to my attention the decision of the Supreme Court in Mallesappa v. Mallappa, . In that case, it was laid down that where a manager of a joint family claims that any immovable property had been acquired by him with his own separate funds and not with the help of the joint family funds of which he was in possession and charge, it was for him to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence his plea that the purchase money proceeded from his separate fund. The onus of proof must in such a case, il was held, be placed on the manager and not on his coparceners."
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

T.V. Balakrishnan vs Income-Tax Officer on 15 April, 1988

To pronounce on the question of law presented for our decision, we must first examine what is the true scope of the doctrine of throwing into the 'common stock' or 'common hotchpot'. It must be remembered that a Hindu family is not a creature of a contract. As observed by this court in Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai Mallappa [1961] 3 SCR 779, the doctrine of throwing into the common stock inevitably postulates that the owner of separate property is a coparcener who has an interest in the coparcenary property and desires to blend his separate property with the coparcenary property. The existence of a coparcenary is absolutely necessary before a coparcener can throw into the common stock his self-acquired properties. The separate property of a member of a joint Hindu family may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by him into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim therein. The separate property of a Hindu ceases to be separate property and acquires the characteristics of joint family or ancestral property not by any physical mixing with his joint family or his ancestral property but by his own volition and intention by his waiving and surrendering his separate rights in it as separate property. The act by which the coparcener throws his separate property in the common stock is a unilateral act. There is no question of either the family rejecting or accepting it. By his individual volition he renounces his individual right in that property and treats it as a property of the family. No longer he declares his intention to treat his self-acquired property as that of the joint family property, the property assumes the character of joint family property. The doctrine of throwing into the common stock is a doctrine peculiar to the Mitakshara school of Hindu law. When a coparcener throws his separate property into the common stock, he makes no gift under Chapter VII of the Transfer of Property Act. In such a case there is no donor or donee. Further, no question of acceptance of the property thrown into the common stock arises.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Madras Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Surjitlal Chhabda vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Bombay ... on 9 July, 1969

11. A further submission which is of the same nature as the above contention was that for the operation of the doctrine of blending self-acquired property with the property of a joint Hindu family, it was an essential precondition that there should exist not only a coparcenary but also a coparcenary property. Counsel did not after some discussion press that there should necessarily be coparcenary property, but he did insist that there should be a coparcenary before the doctrine of blending can operate. He relied for this contention upon an observation in the decision of the Supreme Court in Mallesappa v. Mallappa. He pointed out that the whole concept of blending property with that of the joint family depends on the male member being capable of sharing in some property with another male member with whose property he blends his own property. He cannot blend his property where there is nothing to blend it with, nor with persons who are not themselves capable of sharing in his property. Therefore, it is essential that there must be someone capable of sharing in the blended property with the person whose property it is, and in this case there was none because there were only the wife and the unmarried daughter of the assessee.
Bombay High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Lallulal & Others vs . Prakash Chand & Others on 18 April, 2014

As has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai vs. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa (supra), where a Manager claims that any immovable property has been acquired by him with his own separate funds and not with the help of the joint family funds of which he was in possession and charge, it is for him to prove by clear and satisfactory evidence his plea that the produced money was from his separate funds. Their lordships were of the view that the onus of proof in such a case, must be placed on the Manager and not on his coparceners.
Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur Cites 37 - Cited by 0 - A Roy - Full Document

Bipinbhai Vadilal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Gujarat-I on 6 March, 1980

"To pronounce on the question of law presented for our decision, we must first examine what is the true scope of the doctrine of throwing into the 'common stock' or 'common hotchpot'. It must be remember that a Hindu family is not a creature of a contract. As observed by this court in Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai v. Desai mallappa, AIR 1961 SC 1268, the doctrine of throwing into common stock inevitably postulates that the owner of a separate property is a coparcener who has an interest in the coparcenary property and desires to blend his separate property with the coparcenary property. The existence of a coparcenary property is absolutely necessary before a coparcener can throw into the common stock his self-acquired properties. The separate property of a member of a joint Hindu family may be impressed with the character of joint family property if it is voluntarily thrown by him into the common stock with the intention of abandoning his separate claim therein. The separate property of a Hindu ceases to be separate property and acquires the characteristics of joint family or his ancestral property not by any physical mixing with his joint family or his ancestral property but by is own volition and intention by his waiving and surrendering his separate rights in it as separate property."
Gujarat High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ku. Suman Vishnu Pathak vs Smt. Usha W/O Prabhakarrao Koparkar on 29 October, 2012

41. Thus, there is a consistent view of the Apex Court that if the property stands in the name of a coparcener of a Hindu Undivided Family, then presumption is that it is his self-acquired property, unless it is shown that it is acquired with the aid of nucleus of the joint family property. The principles laid down by the Apex Court in these decisions are attracted in the present case, rather than the principles laid down by it in its decision in the case of Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and another v. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa and another, cited supra.
Bombay High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 5 - R K Deshpande - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next