citedby: 997766

Bhimabai Jivangouda Patil vs Gurunathgouda Khandappagouda on 28 February, 1928

17. This being the case defendant No. 1 had no authority to adopt defendant No. 2 without the consent of her husband's coparceners as has been held by this Court in the Full Bench decision in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai (1925) 28 Bom.

Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Balu Sakharam Powar vs Lahoo Sambhaji Tetgura on 16 October, 1936

18 was over ruled by Yadao v. Namdao A.I.R 1922 P.C. 216 and that the decision in Ishwar Dadu v. Gajabai was erroneous. The Board reversed the High Court's judgment and held that the adoption was valid. Although that decision has been the subject of strong and weighty criticizm in this country, it must now be taken as definitely established that in this Presidency the widow of a deceased coparcener in a joint family has an inherent power to make an adoption to her deceased husband without the consent of his coparceners.

Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Bhimabai Kom Jivangouda Patil vs Gurunathgouda Khandappagouda Patil on 4 November, 1932

28. For the reasons stated above, their Lordships are of opinion that Ramji v. Ghamau was overruled by the Board in Yadao v. Namdeo, and that the opposite view taken by the full bench of the High Court at Bombay in Ishwar Dadu v. Gajabai is wrong.

Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 31 - Full Document

Sitabai Ramrao Deshmukh vs Govindrao Ramrao Deshmukh on 11 August, 1926

As between express authority at one end and express prohibition at the other is the large space of implied authority and implied prohibition. The dividing line between the last two categories cannot be laid down by the Courts. That must be a question on the facts in each case and does not depend on the words 'with his authority' or 'in the absence of the prohibition'.

Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Vishnu Bapu Shinde vs Lakshmi Sakharam Shinde on 18 August, 1933

The following points may be noted in this connexion: (1) The case was not referred to in the judgment under consideration, that is to say in the judgment in Ishwar Dadu v. Gajabai 1926 Bom 435.

Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Shivappa Rudrappa Tenginkai vs Rudrava Chanbasappa on 23 September, 1931

69,83 With reference to the effect to be given to these observations, this Court is bound by the Full Bench decision in Ishwar Dadu v. Gajabai (1925) I.L.R. 50 Bom. 468 : s.c. 28 Bom.

Bombay High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Bala Anna Gurav vs Akubai Babu Gurav on 18 June, 1926

498, F. B., according to the view of the majority of the Full Bench in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai, which held that Ramji v. Ghamau has not been overruled by Yadao v. Namdeo. I have detailed my reasons for that view in my judgment in the Full Bench decision. Shah J.'s judgment is to the same effect, and I cannot find anything in it to uphold the contention of the present appellant.

Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Bala Anna Gurav vs Akubai Babu Gurav on 18 June, 1926

according to the view of the majority of the Full Bench in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 216 which held that Ramji v. Ghamau [1879] 6 Bom. 498 (F.B.)

Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balu Sakharam Powar vs Lahoo Sambhaji Tetgura on 16 October, 1936

In the judgment delivered by Sir Dinshah Mulla it was held that Ramji v. Ghamau was overruled by Yadao's case and that the decision in Ishwar Dadu's case was erroneous. The Board reversed the High Court's judgment and held that the adoption was valid. Although that decision has been the subject of strong and weighty criticism in this country, it must now be taken as definitely established that in this presidency the widow of a deceased coparcener in a joint family has an inherent power to make an adoption to her deceased husband without the consent of his coparceners.

Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Babanna Sangappa vs Parava Ningbasappa on 29 June, 1926

L.R. 619 must be held to be erroneous on the recent Full Bench decision of this Court in Ishvar Dadu v. Gajabai (1925) 28 Bom. L.R. 782 : s.c. I.L.R. 50 Bom.

Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results