Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (4.42 seconds)
Documents citing Dattatraya @ Prakash And Ors vs Krishna Rao @ Lala Saheb Baxi Through ... on 20 August, 1991

G.Madhava Rao (Deceased) vs M.Rukmani Bai on 14 September, 2012

13. The decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 1972 [Dattatraya alias Prakash and others v. Krishna Rao alias Lala Saheb Baxi through L.Rs., etc.] would highlight the point that the burden is on the co-sharer who pleads that there was no joint possession of the property concerned and that he became the absolute owner of the property. This would highlight the point that, simply because the property might stand in the name of one of the co-sharers in the official records, that would not mean that it is the exclusive property of the individual concerned. Relating to such proposition there could be no quarrel.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - G Rajasuria - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs K. Selvaraj. (Cwt V.K. Selvaraj) on 17 December, 1997

The above passage was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Dattatraya vs. Krishna Rao . The above passage of the Board clearly shows that it is the joint family that is the owner of the house property and the holder is not the owner though he has full right of enjoyment of the property. It is probably to neutralise the effect of the decision of the Privy Council, cl. (a) of sub-s. (4) of s. 9 of the Indian IT Act, 1922 was introduced in the year 1948 deeming the holder of the impartible estate as an individual owner of the properties comprised in the estate.
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income Tax vs K. Selvaraj on 17 December, 1997

The above passage was approved by the Supreme Court in the case of Dattatraya v. Krishna Rao AIR 1991 SC 1972. The above passage of the Board clearly shows that it is the joint family that is the owner of the house property and the holder is not the owner though he has full right of enjoyment of the property. It is probably to neutralise the effect of the decision of the Privy Council, clause (a) of sub-section (4) of section 9 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 was introduced in the year 1948 deeming the holder of the impartible estate as an individual owner of the properties comprised in the estate.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Rajiah Nadar vs Manonmani Ammal on 13 January, 1999

Reference was also made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Dattatraya v. Rangnathgopal Rao and others, holding that if the person signing the document pleads ignorance then in certain circumstances it may be necessary for the party seeking to prove the document to satisfy the Court that the executant had knowledge of its contents. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent relies on the observation of the Supreme Court in the very same judgment which is to the effect that a party seeking to prove the execution of a document was not required to prove that the executant knew the contents thereof when the executant denies having signed it and pleads that it is a forgery. Therefore, having regard to the nature of the dispute, this issue naturally leads to the discussion of the evidence pertaining to the very execution of Ex.A.1. According to learned counsel for the appellant, in contrast to the judgment of the trial Court which had the advantage of watching the quality and demeanour of the witnesses and the detailed discussion by the trial Court, the appellate Court had failed to consider the evidence in proper perspective.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil & Ors. Etc. ... vs Balwant And Balasaheb Babusaheb ... on 6 January, 1995

5.In Dattatraya & Ors. v. Krishna Rao & Ors., 1993 supp. (1) SCC 32, a two Judge Bench of this Court to which one of us (K. Ramaswamy, J.) was a Member, was to consider the rule of primogeniture extensively and held at p.39 that there are estates which by special law or custom descend to senior- most member of the family, generally the eldest, to the ex- clusion of the other members and which are impartible, though they are joint family property, in the eye of the law, belonging equally to the other members; and their rights are hedged in by a number of restrictions or limitations. It was further held at p.42 in para 18 that the impartible estate, though descends by rule of primogeniture and survivorship on the eldest male member of the family, it must also be proved that the junior members gave up expressly or by implication his right to a share therein. An impartible estate may be created by a grant or by custom. It is a creature of custom. In the case of ordinary joint family property, the members of the family have the right to partition and the right of survivorship. The right to partition cannot exist in the case of impartible estate. The pre-existing law attached the property, movable or immovable, by grant etc. to the watan for rendering service by the watandar. As its concomitance recognised the rule of primogeniture and by its operation, the eldest male member in the family or the eldest in the first branch gets the right to watan and the property attached to the watan would be enjoyed as an incidence of or consequential to his rendering watan service. The statute also can abrogate the operation of the custom and succession to watan property by rule of primogeniture and the Act in fact did achieve that object, abolished the office of watan and liabilities appertaining to it including the burden of service and made the lands ryotwari lands. On regrant the erstwhile watandar holds the lands for and on behalf of the Hindu joint family impressed with the character as joint family property.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 213 - K Ramaswamy - Full Document

**** vs Ut Chandigarh Admn. & Ors on 8 November, 2012

The acquisition in order to be valid must be for a public purpose and the person deprived of the same is entitled to compensation"4. 'Resumption', on the other hand, has been understood to mean "taking back what was given". The Blacks' Law Dictionary as well as The Chambers 21st Century Dictionary also define 'resumption' as "the taking back of property previously given up or lost" and "to take back or return to a former position" respectively. The word 'resumption' was explained in Dattatraya vs. Krishna Rao, (1993) Suppl. 1 SCC 32 to say that "what was resumed are the lands and not the property of a person from whom it was taken by the rightful owner". The 'resumption', 'forfeiture' or 'confiscation' of a property thus, does not amount to its 'acquisition' within the meaning of Articles 31 or 300-A of the 4 [Ref.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 105 - Cited by 0 - S Kant - Full Document

Syed Mohammed Abbas Ali Meerza vs State Of West Bengal . on 13 August, 2014

In this regard, reliance was also placed on a decision of this Court in Dattatraya alias Prakash and others vs. Krishna Rao alia Lala Saheb Baxi Through Lrs and others [(1993) Suppl. (1) SCC 32]. Having considered the reasoning of the High Court, we are of the view that no error can be found either with regard to the meaning of the expression 'Primogeniture - Law of Succession' or with regard to the conclusions regarding the claim of the 12 legal heirs of Sajid Ali Meerza as made in Civil Appeal No.8130 of 2009. To buttress the contentions advanced in the aforesaid Civil Appeal, a feeble attempt has been made by the learned counsels to contend that the Law of Primogeniture will not govern the succession which has to be determined as per the Muslim Personal Law (Shia Law). In this regard, we have already noticed the terms of the original Deed of Indenture of 1891 and the position under the Statutory enactments that followed. Succession was required to be governed by the Law of Primogeniture and not by the Shia Muslim Law.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1