Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.22 seconds)Masit-Ullah vs Lala Damodar Prasad on 22 June, 1926
The coparcenary is limited to the holder of the joint family property and to those males in unbroken male descent who are not removed from him by more than three degrees. While discussing this feature of the coparcenary the Privy Council in Masit Ullah v. Damodar Prasad quoted with approval the following passage from Mayne :
Bal Gangadhar Tilak vs Shri Shriniwas Pandit on 26 March, 1915
One of the principal reasons for adoption among the Hindu is to provide a son for the purpose of offering funeral cakes and libations of water to the means of the adopter and his ancestors : see Bal Gangadhar Tilak v. Shriniwas Pandit. A text quoted in the Dattak Mimamsa declares that a son is adopted "for the sake of the funeral cake, water and solemn rites, and for the celebrity of his name".
Uma Sunker Moitro vs Kali Komul Mozumdar And Ors. on 21 June, 1880
An adopted son becomes a member of the coparcenary and his position has been accurately described by R. C. Mitter J. in Uma Shunker Moitro v. Kali Komul Mozumdar, as effecting "his complete substitution into the adopters family as if he were born in it", a statement of the law which received the approval of the Privy Council in Nagindas Bhugwandas v. Bachoo Hurkissondas
Joint family property has been divided into two classes, sapratibandhadaya and sapratibandhadaya, or, as it is now generally referred to, unobstructed heritage and obstructed heritage. As cited by Mayne, the Mitakshara explains this division as follows :
The Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Gomedalli Lakshminarayan on 28 March, 1935
The essential characteristics of a Mitakshara coparcenary were concisely summarised by Rangnekar J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gomedalli Lakshminarayan :
Rathinasabapathy Pillai And Anr. vs Saraswathi Ammal on 29 January, 1953
So also in Rathinasabapathy Pillai v. Saraswathi Ammal, it was pointed out that :
Baijnath Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Babu Tej Bali Singh on 30 May, 1916
The term "coparcener" was borrowed by Colebrooke from the English law for the purpose of describing the members of a joint Hindu family. A "coparcenary" in English law, is however, very different from the body to which the term was sought to be applied in Hindu Law, as was pointed out by the Privy Council in Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh. But as applied in the Hindu Law, it has now come to enjoy a well accepted and clearly defined meaning.
Shivappa Laxman And Anr. vs Yellawa Shivappa Shivagannavar And ... on 27 November, 1952
The impact of the Act upon the existing Hindu Law was succinctly analysed by Gajendragadkar J. in Shivappa Laxman v. Yellawa; he also came to the same conclusion that under the Act a Hindu widow does not become a coparcener.
Manorama Bai vs Rama Bai And Ors. on 19 March, 1956
For the assessee great reliance has been placed upon the decision in Manorama Bai v. Rama Bai, where a Bench of the Madras High Court expressed the view that because a Hindu widow enjoys the same interest in the joint family property, which her deceased husband had, she becomes coparcener even as he was. With respect upon the several consideration to which we have adverted above we fail to share the view.
Movva Subba Rao And Anr. vs Movva Krishna Prasadam Minor By Padyala ... on 27 March, 1953
The word "coparcener" is not defined in the Act, and there is nothing to indicate that the word "coparcener" bears a meaning different from that embraced by it under the Hindu law. On the Contrary, as it occurs in section 10 which makes provision for the mode of taxing the agricultural income of a joint Hindu family, the legal connotation of that word should be prima facie be the same as in the Hindu Law. Moreover the interest of happens is that the right of the coparceners to take by survivorship which was in abeyance so long as the widow was alive comes into operation the moments she dies : Subba Rao v. Krisha Prasadam.