Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Yellavajjhula Surayya vs Tummalapalli Mangayya And Ors. on 28 November, 1938

Raghunath Keshava Kharkar vs Ganesh And Others on 2 May, 1963

Yellavajjhula Surayya v. Tummalapalli Mangayya (2) is a case more directly in point. In that case the plaintiff was declared an insolvent in 1919. He was still an insolvent in 1929 when certain property devolved on him as reversioner. He was granted an absolute discharge in August 1931. No creditors had come to prove their debts or to take steps between 1919 and 1929; nor did the official receiver take any step prior to 1929 or between 1929 to 1931. After his absolute discharge, the plaintiff instituted a suit for recovering the property., In that (1) (1926) 82 Bom. L.R. 554.
Supreme Court of India Cites 35 - Cited by 15 - K N Wanchoo - Full Document

For The vs Ubramaniua Asari And Another) The ... on 8 December, 2022

We are of the opinion that the expression 'property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother' occurring in this sub-clause must be given a restricted meaning consistent with the absolute right of disposition of the female owner. The special rule of succession applies only in case the very 'property' inherited by a female from her father or mother is still available at the time of her death, otherwise, the rule does not apply. For example, if the identity of the property is changed or if the property is substantially altered or improved or if the property has been substituted, the said special rule can have no application. We are of the opinion that placing a broader meaning upon the said expression 'property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother' would lead to much mischief not contemplated by the Parliament. If the property were to be followed by the father's heirs irrespective of the change in the identity and/or character of the property it would give scope for unsavoury litigation and complications. This case itself in a small measure indicates the same. If the broader interpretation is placed upon the said expression and the plaintiff and the second defendant are allowed to pursue the said property in whosoever's hands and in whatever shape, then we would be obliged to pass a decree for partition to the extent of the original 1/3rd share of late GudisevaSubbamma. The question of interest accruing on the consideration for the original share, its accretions and separation of the said interest from the 1/6th interest acquired by the said Subbamma under her mother's gift deed as well as the determination and separation of the interest in the said property attributable to the funds provided by her husband will all have to be gone into. The learned 10 counsel for the appellant however relied upon Surayya v. Mangayya, (1) A.I.R. 1941, Mad. 345. That was a case where the widow blended funds from several sources including from her husband's estate and invested the same in reacquiring the property which previously formed part of her husband's estate but has been alienated by him. It was held that having regard to the surrounding circumstances and facts of the case, the acquired property must be taken to be part of the husband's estate and available for reversioners. But that was a case of a widow's estate while we are dealing here with an estate of a female who was the absolute owner of the property with unfettered right of disposition over the same and, therefore, we are not prepared to import the principle applicable in the case of widow's estate to the present case.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1