Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.38 seconds)
Documents citing Shivappa Rudrappa Tenginkai vs Rudrava Chanbasappa on 23 September, 1931

Kashinath Rudrappa Regal vs Ramaya Rajana Pali on 23 January, 1936

5. The other cases which have been referred to do not present the same difficulty. The case of Rudrappa V. Chanbasappa, on which reliance is placed, purports to be a decision under Section 15B of the Dekkhan Agriculturists' Relief Act, and if it were a decision under Section 15B, it would no doubt be in favour of the present appellants' contention. But we sent for the record from which it appears that the suit was one on a promissory-note, and was, therefore, a suit which fell under Section 20 of the Act, and to which Section 15B had no application.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Siddappa Gangappa Shintre vs Ramchandra Vishnu Ginde on 14 December, 1939

So that the question of the application of Section 15 B arose in execution proceedings after the passing of the final decree. As both the preliminary and the final decrees were passed ex parte, the defendant in that case was entitled to reopen the question as to status on the authority of Rudrappa v. Chanbasappa (1923) 26 Bom. L. R 153, and the other cases to which I have referred.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Bai Kesarba vs Shivsangji Bhimsangji Thakor on 12 April, 1932

64. There is difference between the power of adoption of a widow of the last male owner and the power of adoption of a widow to her husband who was not the last male holder. The mother adopts to her husband and not to her son the last male holder as in the present case. In the Bombay Presidency in the case of adoption by a widow, other than the widow of the last male holder, two conditions necessary for its validity have to be satisfied, first, that she divests no other estate than her own, i.e., she must not divest any other estate than her own, and, secondly, that even though she divests no other estate but her own, her power of adoption has not come to an end. I have discussed the question in Shivappa v. Rudrava (1931) 34 Bom. L.R. 539, 550. In the case of an adoption by the widow of the last male holder, the adopted son becomes the son of the last male holder and would be able to divest the estate of any person who has taken the estate subject to defeasance by the emergence of a new heir. In the present case even if the fiction of the death of defendant No. 1 on his adoption be accepted, the ordinary property would go to defendant No. 5, the daughter of Chhatrasangji. The adopted son by the mother of Chhatraaangji would be his brother if the adoption is valid, but the daughter is the preferential heir to a brother in the compact series of heirs.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Mulam Chand Chhoteylall Modi vs Kanchhendilall Bhaiyalal And Ors. on 29 March, 1957

Thus in Shivappa Rudrappa v. Rudrava Chanbasappa, ILR 57 Bom 1 : (AIR 1932 Bom 410) (D), an oral request by an elder brother to his younger brother at the time of his death to give half the property to his widow was not held to amount to a separation. In the present case all that was stated by Sukkelal in the will was that he was entitled to -/5/4 share in the entire property. Such statement is also made by any member of a joint family during the state if jointness and even separate shares are entered in the village records, but that, by itself, does not necessarily indicate, an intention to separate from the family. We are not, therefore, inclined to accept that the will can be held to effect a separation of Sukkelal from the joint family.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Shankar Ramkrishna Dandekar vs Daga Tanaji Mali on 31 October, 1947

On that date the judgment-debtor appeared and applied to the Court that being an agriculturist he should be allowed to satisfy the decree by paying instalments. The executing Court took the view that it was not open to the judgment-debtor to raise a contention about his status at that stage of the proceedings and he dismissed the application of the judgment-debtor. In appeal the learned District Judge took the contrary view. The learned District Judge has relied on two decisions of this Court, One is Rudrappa v. Chanbasappa (1923) 26 Bom. L.R. 153. In that case the defendant was not described as an agriculturist in the decree and the learned District Judge took the view that it was not open to the executing Court to investigate into the status of the judgment-debtor when the decree did not describe him as an agriculturist. Sir Norman Macleod C.J. and Mr. Justice Crump differed from that view and came to the conclusion that it was open to a judgment-debtor to establish that he was an agriculturist at the date o the passing of the decree in execution proceedings, although the decree did no' describe him as such.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1