Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 19 (0.27 seconds)Umakant Balkrishna vs Martand Keshav on 8 November, 1932
Learned counsel for the respondents did argue that the said finding is wrong
and illegal but I do not find any reason to interfere with the said concurrent
finding of facts recorded by the Courts below on that issue. The Courts
below were required to record the said finding because there was a contest
on the issue about attainment of majority of Tukaram. Proceeding further
with this preface, I find that only major son in the family after the death
of Nana was Tukaram while plaintiff no.1- Suman had already been married
and had gone to reside with her husband at a different place. Mr. Hon,
learned counsel for the appellant cited the decision in the case of
Umakant vs. Martand Keshav (1933) 35 BOMLR 388 decided on 8th
November, 1938 authored by Rangnekar, J in the Division Bench with
Baker, J. Paragraph 8 of the said decision reads thus :-
Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Ghanshyam Das Laxmi Narain on 26 November, 1973
However it is seen
that Nagpur decisions in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Laxmi
Narayan : AIR (36) 1949 Nag.128 which was followed the earlier judgment
cited supra on the said point, stood overruled in AIR 1966 SC page 24 in
the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Seth Govindram Sugar
Mills. I quote paragraph 10 thereof, which reads thus :
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Chandradip Prosad vs Jagannath Agarwalla on 9 July, 1976
Thereafter there is a decision of Division Bench of Calcutta High
Court reported in AIR 1978 Cal.157 in the matter of Chandradip Prosad
vs. Jagannath Agarwalla. In paragraph 11, the Calcutta High Court held
thus;
Abdulla Kunjipokkarukutty And Anr. vs Ayyappan Ravunny And Ors. on 15 March, 1973
(iv) AIR 1973 Kerala 192
(Abdulla Kunjikkarukutty & another vs. Ayyappan Ravunny and
others).
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madhya ... vs Seth Govindram Sugar Mills Ltd on 26 March, 1965
However it is seen
that Nagpur decisions in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Laxmi
Narayan : AIR (36) 1949 Nag.128 which was followed the earlier judgment
cited supra on the said point, stood overruled in AIR 1966 SC page 24 in
the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Seth Govindram Sugar
Mills. I quote paragraph 10 thereof, which reads thus :
Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959
Pandurang Ramchandra , LIR (1947) Nag. 299 : (AIR 1947
Nag. 178). The Calcutta High Court expressed the view that
where the male members are minors and their natural
guardian is the mother, the mother can represent the Hindu
undivided family for the purpose of assessment and
recovery of taxes under the Income Tax Act: see Sushila
Devi Rampuria vs. Income Tax officer 1960-38 ITR 316:
Radha Rukmani Ammal vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 24 August, 1956
The decision of the Orissa High Court in Maqguni
Padhano v. Lokananidhi Lingaraj Dora, AIR 1956 Orissa 1,
followed the decision of the Madras High Court in Radha
Ammal v. Commisisoner of Income Tax Madras (1950) 18
ITR 225, 230, 232, 233: (AIR 1950 Mad 538 as pp. 539,
Kedarnath Kanoria And Ors. vs Khaitan Sons And Co. on 17 December, 1958
" Therefore, unless it is otherwise proved that by a
common consent a younger member is appointed karta it
would always be reasonable to hold that in the absence of the
father the eldest amongst the sons would be the karta of the
family if it continues to remain joint. Such was also the view
expressed by this Court in the case, of Ganeshmull Surana v.
Nagraj Surana , 56 Cal WN 812: (AIR 1953 Cal 294) though
the said decision was overruled by the Division Bench on
another point in the case of Kedarnath Kanoria v. Khaitan
Sons and Co. AIR 1959 Cal.368. "