Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 17 (0.20 seconds)
C.S. Vadamalai Pillai And Ors. vs P. Subramania Chettiar And Ors. on 15 September, 1922 cites

Kundan Lal vs Shankar Lal And Anr. on 6 August, 1913

23. If this view be correct, the plaintiff ought to have proved that the property was acquired with the separate property of Mohan Lal or at least that after the acquisition he held it as separate property excluding the other members. The decision in Kumdan Lal v. Shankar Lal 21 Ind. Cas. 13 : 35 A. 564 : 11 A.L.J. 910, is no authority for saying that whenever property is acquired by a member of a joint Hindu family, it must 1 necessarily, be presumed to be, joint.
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Chet Ram vs Ram Singh on 10 April, 1922

156, a decision of the Oudh Judicial Commissioner's Court given before the Privy Council had decided Chet Ram v. Ram Singh 67 Ind. Cas. 569 : 49 I. A. 228 : 43 M.L.J. 98 : 3 P.L.T. 363 : 31 M.L.T. 50 : 16 L.W. 89 : (1922) M.W.N. 455 : 4 U.P. L.R. (P.C.) 64 : 44 A. 368 : 3 P.L.R. 1922 : 24 Bom. L.R. 123 : 27 C.W.N. 150 : (1922) A.I.R. (P.C.) 47 (P.C.) does not appear to be sound law.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 15 - Full Document

Raja Balwant Singh vs The Rev. Rockwell Clancy And Rao Maharaj ... on 28 February, 1912

10. On the third point the appellant's learned Vakil quotes the case of Balwant Singh v. Rev. Rockwell Clancy 14 Ind. Cas. 629 : 34 A. 296 : (1912) M.W.N. 462 : 11 M.L.T. 344 : 9 A.L.J. 509 : 15 C.L.J. 475 : 16 C.W.N. 577 : 23 M.L.J. 18 : 14 Bom. L.E. 422 : 39 I.A. 109 (P.C.). In that case the mortgage made by Deoraj Singh was held to have been made not as manager of the family or as representing Maharaj Singh who was a minor, and, therefore, the mortgage-deed was void against Maharaj Singh and his interest in the estate. In the present case the 1st defendant did not purport to be mortgaging only his own share in the lands described in Exhibit E, and, therefore, it must be taken that he mortgaged such interest as he was capable of mortgaging thereby. If a father transfers property and it is clear that he intends to part with all the interest he possesses in any capacity in the property, a recital in the deed as to its being self-acquired property is not sufficient to invalidate an otherwise proper transaction.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Rajender Dutt vs Sham Chund Mitter And Ors. on 21 May, 1880

There it was held, quoting the words of Couch, C.J., in Kedamath Dutt v. Sham hall Khettry 20 W.R. 150 : 11 B.L.R. 405, that if there is a memorandum accompanying an equitable mortgage and if without such a memorandum there would have been a complete equitable mortgage by the deposit of the deeds, the memorandum in such a case is only evidence of the fact of the deposit which might be proved by any other evidence. In Exhibits E and E(2) there are no words purporting to pass an interest in immoveable property and, therefore, I hold that they do not require registration.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Amar Nath And Gokulchand vs Hukam Chand Nathu Mal on 24 January, 1921

13 : 35 A. 564 : 11 A.L.J. 910, Luximon Row Sadasew v. Mullar Row Bajee (1831) 2 Knapp 60 : 5 W.R. P.C. 67 : 1 Norton's L.C. 169 : 12 E.R. 401, Tottempudi Venkataratnam v. Tottempudi Seshamma 27 M. 228 and Amar Nath v. Firm of Hukam Chand-Nathu Mal 60 Ind. Cas. 371 : 2 L. 40 : 19 A.L.J. 249 : 40 M.L.J. 327 : 2 P.L.T. 208 : 33 C.L.J. 355 : 29 M.L.T. 258 : (1921) M. W. N. 175 : 25 C.W. N. 534 : 3 U.P.L.R. (P.C.) 12 : 23 Bom. L.R. 671 : 14 L.W. 435 : 42 P.W.R. 1921 (P. C), for the position that the mere fact that there is a family nucleus is sufficient to make out that all the acquisitions of a member belonging to the family are joint family property, and that the onus is heavily on any one who asserts that it is his self-acquisition to show that no part of the family nucleus went to help the member in the acquisition of such property.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 Next