Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Basappa Dodfakirapa Hebballiyavar vs Fakirappa Shenkrappa Hebballiyavar on 5 July, 1921

Kurvateppa Mahalingappa Kurvatti vs Ningayya Chnbasaya Patrimath on 14 February, 1930

The ruling of the Full Bench, does not, in my opinion, overrule Tuljaram Morarji v. Mathuradas, Vinayak v. Govind, and Basappa v. Fakirappa, except in the last case to the extent that instead of putting the matter against the: consenting reversioner on the ground of estoppel, the next reversioner, whether male or female, should be held to be debarred from questioning the validity of the alienation on the ground that he or she by joining the sale-deed elected not to have it set aside. The ruling of the Full Bench is no authority, in my opinion, for the proposition that a consent to alienation given by a female reversioner would raise a presumption in law against parties other than such reversioner that there was legal necessity for the alienation,
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Karusinga Kushansing vs Narsinha Rangrao Patil on 2 February, 1937

12. Mr. Thakor tries to bring the case within the ambit of such cases as Akkawa V. Sayadkhm Mithekhm and Basappa v. Fakirappa by, treating the relinquishment of 1912 as part and parcel of the rajinama and the kabulayat transaction four years earlier. He argues that in effect the plaintiff consented! to the alienation, by Haribai to defedant No. 1. But in fact no connection between the two transactions has been proved and there does not appear to be any evidence that the plaintiff was even aware of the rajinama. There is no ground for holding, therefore, that the plaintiff's right to sue is barred.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Annu Mukunda Kakade vs Shripati Tukaram Shinde on 25 February, 1930

L.R. 1040, and held that the gift made by a Hindu widow of a portion of her husband's property with the consent of the next reversioner was valid on the principle of estoppel as against the particular reversioner, who consented to it. The authority of Bai Parvati v. Dayabhai Manchharam must be taken to have been still further weakened by the decision of the Full Bench in Akkawa v. Sayadkhan, affirming the principle in Basappa v. Fakirappa not indeed on the ground of estoppel on which it actually proceeded, but on the ground of election referred to by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Rangasami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden (1918) L.R. 46 I. Section 72, 75, s.c. 21 Bom. L.R. 640.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Fateh Singh And Ors. vs Thakur Rukmini Rawanji Maharaj on 26 January, 1923

L.R. 704 with Basappa v. Fakirappa 64 Ind. Cas. 214 : 46 B. 292 : 23 Bom. L.R. 1040 : (1922) A.I.R. (B.) 102. The decision of the District Judge in this case has not been shown to conflict with any rule laid down by their Lordships of the Privy Council, and was clearly right. The question of the effect of the decree in favour of Duli Chand does not, in my opinion, arise, and the point was conceded at the Bar during the hearing.
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Tukaram Vithu Shedge vs Yesu Maruti Kore on 3 July, 1930

16. The result, therefore, is that the gift in the present case is in favour of the son-in-law and cannot be considered to be a surrender in favour of the next reversioner. It is merely an alienation without necessity and without consideration in favour of the son-in-law and not in favour of the next reversioner. Therefore, the theory of surrender cannot be invoked in supporting the transaction as the surrender must be to the next reversioner. When the alienation is of the whole or part of the estate by the widow in favour of a stranger for consideration, the consent of the next reversioner raises a presumption that the transaction is justified by necessity and is a right and proper one. The gift of the whole or part of an estate in favour of a stranger is not validated by the consent of the reversioner. The gift may be binding on the consenting revorsioner on the ground of estoppel as held in Basappa v. Fakirappa (1921) I.L.R. 46 Bom. 292 or on the ground of election according to the cases already referred to. But the eventual reversioner or the adopted son would not be bound by the gift of the whole or part of the estate made by the widow with the consent of the next reversioner.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1