Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.19 seconds)
Jayaram Naidu vs /
cites
Kamala Devi vs Bachu Lal Gupta on 29 January, 1957
8. Hindu law on the question of gifts of ancestral property is well-settled. So far as movable ancestral property is concerned, a gift out of affection may be made to a wife, to a daughter and even to a son, provided the gift is within reasonable limits. A gift for example of the whole or almost the whole of the ancestral movable property cannot be upheld as a gift through affection: (see Mulla's Hindu Law, 13th Edn.p. 252, para 225). But so far as immovable ancestral property is concerned, the power of gift is much more circumscribed than in the case of movable ancestral property. A Hindu father or any other managing member has power to make a gift of ancestral immovable property within reasonable limits for pious purposes: (see Mulla's Hindu Law, 13th Edn. para 226, p. 252). Now what is generally understood by pious purposes is gift for charitable and/ or religious purposes. But this Court has extended the meaning of pious purposes to cases where a Hindu father makes a gift within reasonable limits of immovable ancestral property to his daughter in fulfilment of an antenuptial promise made on the occasion of the settlement of the terms of her marriage, and the same can also be done by the mother in case the father is dead: (see Kamala Devi v. Bachu Lal Gupta [ (1957) SCR 452] ).
State Of West Bengal vs The Dalhousie Institute Society on 5 August, 1970
(vi)On the point of continuous possession adverse to the title holder, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment reported in State of West Bengal v. The Dalhousie Institute Society[AIR 1970 Supreme Court 1778](V57 C 379) held in para 16, which reads as under:
Collector Of Bombay vs Municipal Corporation Of The City Of ... on 5 October, 1951
16. .......In this respect the material documentary evidence referred to by the High Court clearly establishes that the respondent has been treated as owner of the site not only by the Corporation, but also by the Government. The possession of the respondent must have been on the basis of the grant made by the Government, which, no doubt, is invalid in law. As to what exactly is the legal effect of such possession has been Considered by this Court in Collector of Bombay v. Municipal Corporation of the City of Bombay, 1952 SCR 43: AIR 1951 SC 469 as follows:
Kanakarathanammal vs V. S. Loganatha Mudaliar And Another on 18 December, 1963
(i) On the point of possession, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in the judgment reported in Kanakarathanammal v. Loganatha Mudaliar and another[AIr 1965 Supreme Court 271] held as follows:
Section 14 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 100 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Seeni Chettiar vs Santhanathan Chettiar And Ors. on 17 July, 1895
(vii) On the point of evidenciary value of unregistered document, this Court in the judgment reported in Seeni Chettiar v. Santhanathan Chettiar and others[20 Mad.58 (F.B.)=6 MLJ 281] held as follows:
1