Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.24 seconds)
Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango And Others on 23 March, 1954 cites

Anant Bhikappa Patil vs Shankar Ramchandra Patil on 26 July, 1943

The fact is, as frankly conceded by the learned Judges, they were puzzled by the decision in Anant Bhikappa Patil (Minor) v. Shankar Ramchandra Patil (1), and as it was an authority binding on the Indian Courts, they could not refuse to follow it, and were obliged to discover a distinction. This Court, however, is not hampered by any such limitation, and is free to consider the question on its own merits.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 86 - Full Document

Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar Rai vs Sanatan Singh on 4 April, 1933

(2) 12 I.A. 137. (4) 2 B.L.R. 103 F.B. 22 interest as that must carry with it the liability to be divested by the introduction of a new coparcener by adoption. This reasoning, however, is wholly inapplicable to property which is not held in coparcenary, such as the estate of a collateral devolving by inheritance. The judgment then refers to the decisions of the Board in Amarendra Mansingh v. Sanatan Singh(1) and Vijaysingji Chhatrasingji v. Shivsangji Bhimsangji(2), and it is observed that the impartible estates which were concerned therein were treated as separate property and not as joint family property, a conclusion which does not settle the question, because even on the footing that the estates were separate properties, no question of collateral succession was involved in them, the claim under litigation being' in respect of the estate of the adoptive father and covered by the principle already established in Vellanki Venkata v. Venkatarama (3) and Verabhai v. Bhai Hiraba (4). Then follows the conclusion already quoted that no distinction can be drawn between properties which come from the father and properties which come from others. This is to ignore the principle that the doctrine of relation back based on the notion of continuity of line can apply and had been applied, only to the estate of the adoptive father and not of collaterals.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 76 - Full Document

Vijaysingji Chhatrasingji Thakor vs Shivsangji Bhimsangji Thakor on 11 March, 1935

(2) 12 I.A. 137. (4) 2 B.L.R. 103 F.B. 22 interest as that must carry with it the liability to be divested by the introduction of a new coparcener by adoption. This reasoning, however, is wholly inapplicable to property which is not held in coparcenary, such as the estate of a collateral devolving by inheritance. The judgment then refers to the decisions of the Board in Amarendra Mansingh v. Sanatan Singh(1) and Vijaysingji Chhatrasingji v. Shivsangji Bhimsangji(2), and it is observed that the impartible estates which were concerned therein were treated as separate property and not as joint family property, a conclusion which does not settle the question, because even on the footing that the estates were separate properties, no question of collateral succession was involved in them, the claim under litigation being' in respect of the estate of the adoptive father and covered by the principle already established in Vellanki Venkata v. Venkatarama (3) and Verabhai v. Bhai Hiraba (4). Then follows the conclusion already quoted that no distinction can be drawn between properties which come from the father and properties which come from others. This is to ignore the principle that the doctrine of relation back based on the notion of continuity of line can apply and had been applied, only to the estate of the adoptive father and not of collaterals.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Babubhai Girdharlal vs Ujamlal Hargovandas on 21 January, 1937

" The Hindu law upon this aspect of the case is well settled. Proof of the existence of a joint family does not lead to the presumption that property held by any member of the family is joint, and the burden rests upon anyone asserting that any item of property was joint to establish the fact. But where it is established that the family possessed some joint property which from its nature and relative value may have formed the nucleus from which the property in question may (1) I.L.R. 1948 Mad. 440 at 447, 448 8 have been acquired, the burden shifts to the party alleging self-acquisition to establish affirmatively that the property was acquired without the aid of the joint family property: See Babubhai Girdharlal v. Ujamlal Hargovandas (1), Venkataramayya v. Seshamma(2) Vythianatha v. Vdradaraja (3)."
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

C.V. Vythinatha Aiyar vs C.V. Varadaraja Aiyar And Ors. on 29 September, 1937

It is argued for the appellant that in that case the father had obtained under the partition deed, Exhibit A, properties of the value of Rs. 7,220, that he acquired properties of the value of Rs. 55,000, and that never- theless, it was observed by the Privy Council that " the acquisition by the appellant of the property under Exhibit A, which as between him and his sons was joint family property, cast upon the appellant (the father) the burden of proving that the property which he possessed at the time of the plaint was his self-acquired property "; and that therefore on proof that there existed ancestral lands of the extent of 56 acres, the burden was shifted on to the defendants to establish self-acquisition. Whether the evidence adduced by the p plaintiff was sufficient to shift the burden which initially rested on ,him of establishing that there was adequate nucleus out of which the acquisitions could have been made is one of fact depending on the nature and the extent of the nucleus. The important thing to consider is the income which the nucleus yields. A building in the occupation of the members of a family- and yielding no income could not be a nucleus out of which acquisitions' could be made, even though it might be of considerable value. On the other hand, a running business in which the capital invested is comparatively small might conceivably product substantial income, which may well form the foundation of the subsequent acquisitions. These are not abstract questions of law, but questions of fact to be determined on the evidence in the case.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 21 - Full Document
1   2 Next