Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)
Hameed vs Jameela on 13 October, 2009 cites

Gulam Abbas vs Haji Kayyum Ali & Ors on 18 September, 1972

13. The issue came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas v. Haji Kayyam Ali (AIR 1973 SC 554). In that case at a time when the father was alive he went into financial difficulties and his properties were almost on the verge of S.A. NO.624 of 1998 -: 17 :- liquidation when two of his sons paid off his debts but in order to get the properties for themselves. Two other sons executed deeds in favour of the sons who were paying off the debts acknowledging that they took certain things as equivalent of their share and that they will have no claim over the properties of the father thereafter. They expressed no objection to the father giving the properties to the brothers who had paid off debts of the father. Divergent decisions on the point were considered by the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 32 - M H Beg - Full Document

Abdul Kafoor And Anr. vs Abdul Razack And Anr. on 18 April, 1958

After ferring to the view expressed by the Madras High Court in Abdul Kafoor v. Abdul Razack (supra) as to the enforcement of a renunciation by an expectant heir in the lifetime of his ancestor, the Supreme Court held, "This is a correct statement, so far as it goes, of the law, because a bare renunciation of an expectation to inherit cannot bind the expectant heir's conduct in future. But, if the expectant heir goes further and receives consideration and so conducts himself as to mislead an owner into not making dispositions of his property inter vivos the expectant heir could be debarred from setting up his right when it does unquestionably vest in him. In other words, the principle of estoppel remains untouched by this statement".
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

The Jumma Masjid, Mercara vs Kodimaniandra Deviah on 11 January, 1962

397) after referring to the dictum laid down by the Supreme Court in Jumma Masjid v. Kodimaniandra Deviah (supra) that the above principle would apply with equal vehemence in regard to estoppel under Sec.115 of the Act as well. Hence Sec.6(a) of the T.P. Act or the relevant provision of Mohammedan Law prohibiting transfer by an heir-apparent of the chance of succeeding to an estate will not, and need not stand in the way of the court considering the S.A. NO.624 of 1998 -: 13 :- application of rule of estoppel in a suitable situation. While holding so I also bear in mind the principle laid down in Section 38 of Mulla's Principles of Mohammedan Law, 18th Edn. which states, "38. Rules of Equity. The rules of equity and equitable considerations commonly recognised in courts of equity in England are not foreign to the Mussulman system, but are in fact often referred to and invoked in the adjudication of cases under that system".
Supreme Court of India Cites 17 - Cited by 203 - Full Document
1   2 Next