Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.40 seconds)
Documents citing Bhaiya Janki Pershad Singh vs Bhaiya Dwarka Pershad Singh on 10 June, 1913

Raja Pratap Vikram Shah vs Kr. Upendra Bahadur Shah And Ors. on 15 September, 1951

Further more the summary settlement in Clause 1 of Section 8 is not necessarily what was spoken of on behalf of the plaintiff in the course of the arguments as 'taluqdari settlement.' The section does not speak of the latter kind of settlement. Whether, it was zemindari settlement or taluqdari settlement was immaterial. As held in the Rammau case, Janki Prasad v. Dwarka Prasad, 9 Ind. Cas. 83 (Oudh), all that mattered was that the settlement was made with a person mentioned in List 1 of the lists prepared under Section 8. It follows that Clause 2 is not necessarily confined to tahiqdars with whom a summary settlement was made before 10-10-1859. The Legislature intended to provide for two classes of cases by inserting Clause 2 as an alternative, namely (1) taluqdars to whom the altered sanad was granted, and (2) persons to whom resumed estates were given and with whom the summary settlement was made after 10-10-1859.
Allahabad High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Har Bakhsh Singh vs Dal Bahadur Singh And Ors. on 21 July, 1924

This case went before their Lordships of the Privy Council, but there was no pronouncement on the question whether the self-acquired property of a taluqdar would be governed by the same rules of succession as the taluqdari property itself Janki Pershad Singh v. Dwarka Pershad Singh 20 Ind. Cas. 73 : 40 I.A. 170 : 17 C.W.N. 1029 : 14 M.L.T. 110 : 25 M.L.J. 34 : (1913) M.W.N. 630 : 18 C.L.J. 200 : 11 A.L.J. 818 : 15 Bom. L.R. 853 : 16 O.C. 216 : 35 A. 391 (P.C.).
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Ganesh Mahadev Deshpande vs Shriniwas Madhav Deshpande on 15 December, 1927

1 and Janki Pershad Singh v. Dwarka Pershad Singh (1913) L.R. 40 I.A. 170, s.c. 15Bom. L.R. 853. Those cases, in my opinion, have no application to the present case. It was decided in those cases that if a holder of an impartible estate acquired lands out of the income of the estate they might be considered to be separate property which would go to his heirs. The question in this case is whether the lands which have been acquired by purchase by the vadil branch would go to the vadil branch or are partible at the instance of the junior members of that branch. Unless it is shown that the lands had been thrown into the common stock and formed part of the joint family property, the junior members of the elder branch cannot claim any share. With regard to the construction of the Sanad. I think that the words show that the soil was transferred to the inamdar.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Shiba Prasad Singh vs Rani Prayag Kumari Debi on 7 April, 1932

In such a case the income, equally with the carpus, forms part of the family property, and if the owner mixes his own moneys with the moneys of the family-as, for example, by putting the whole into one account at the bank, or by treating them in his accounts as indistinguishable-his own earnings share with the property with which they are mingled the character of the joint family property; but no such considerations necessarily apply to the income from impartible property... Whether it be possible in any circumstances to treat movable property as an accretion to a landed estate of this character is a matter not arising for decision... In both Janki Prashad Singh v. Dwarka Pershad Singh and Murtaza Hussain Khan v. Mahomed Yusin Ali Khan the addition of family property to the original raj is considered. Both these cases dealt with property other than movable property. In the present case their Lordships can see no evidence in the facts stated of any sufficient intention to treat the acquired properties, whether the mauzas, mortgages or other personal estate, as part of the original raj.
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 86 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs The Hon'Ble Sri Ravu Swetachalapati ... on 18 December, 1936

Next Janki Prasad Singh v. Dwarka Pershad Singh, (1913) 35 All 391 is cited. That also relates to immoveable property and referring to the previously cited case, it was held that the question whether properties acquired by an owner become part of the ancestral estate for the purposes of his succession depends on his intention to incorporate the acquisitions with the original estate.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kunwar Man Singh And Anr. vs Lal Dharam Moorat Singh And Anr. on 13 October, 1954

22. In order to bring property held by a Taluqdar within the scope of this section it must be established either (a) that the summary settlement of the property had been made within the prescribed dates with the Taluqdar, or (b) that a sanad has been granted to him 'before' the passing of the Act. It is only if either of these conditions is fulfilled that full proprietary rights will accrue in (a) the property entered in the Qabuliat executed at the time of the summary settlement: and (b) in the property which may be decreed to him by a court engaged in effecting the first regular settlement. This is also the view taken in --'Janki Prasad Singh v. Dwarka Prasad Singh', 9 Ind Gas 83 (Oudh) (A).
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dattatraya @ Prakash And Ors vs Krishna Rao @ Lala Saheb Baxi Through ... on 20 August, 1991

In Janki Pershad Singh v. Dwarka Pershad Singh, 40 Indian Appeals 170=ILR 35 Allahabad 391 P.C. the movable and immovable properties acquired from the income of the estate and were incorporated as part of the estate, yet the Board held that the question whether the properties acquired by an owner becomes part of the ancestral estate for the purpose of the succession would be considered from the intention of the holder of the es- tate. It was held, on facts, that no sufficient evidence was adduced to establish such an intention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 10 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

Rani Jagadamba Kumari vs Thakur Wazir Narain Singh on 20 December, 1922

In both Janki Pershad Singh v. Bwarka Pevshad Singh (1913) L.R. 40 I.A. 170 and Murtaza Husaain Khan v. Mahomed Yasin Ali Khan (1916) L.R. 43 I.A. 281 the addition of family property to the original Raj is considered. Both these cases dealt with property other than moveable property. In the present case their Lordships can see no evidence in the facts stated of any sufficient intention to treat the acquired propertieswhether the mouzahs, mortgages or other personal estateas part of the original Raj. The consequence is that to that extent the appellant succeeds, and the decree of the High Court must be varied by declaring that the decree for possession made in favour of the respondent be further varied by providing that it shall not include items 2, 3, 5, 6, 7 and 9 in Schedule A to the plaint. The respondent will pay the costs of the appeal.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 28 - Full Document
1   2 Next