Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.33 seconds)

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

Mahendrasinghji Ranmalsinghji vs Ishwarsinghji Ranmalsinghji And Ors. on 28 August, 1951

In that case also it was held that upon the facts the evidence was not sufficient to establish such an intention on the part of the owner In Murtaza Husain Khan v. Mahomed Yasin Ali Khan, 43 Ind. App. E69, also the observations of their Lordships of the Privy Council were to a similar effect There also the properties were immoveable and ft question bad arisen whether the owner of an impartible ancestral estate who had acquired-certain immovable properties had intended to incorporate the said immovable pro-
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1