Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Jagarnath And Ors. vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation, U.P. ... on 11 May, 1976 cites

Mst. Kirpal Kaur vs Bachan Singh And Others on 15 November, 1957

7. This vexed question of law, however, seems to be finally resolved by a decision of the Supreme Court in AIR 1958 SC 199, Mst. Kirpal Kuar v. Bachan Singh. There a suit had been filed by some of the collaterals of one Ram Ditta against Harnam Kaur, his widow, Kirpal Kaur (daughter of Harnam Kaur and donee from her) and Satwant Singh, son of Kripal Kaur and transferee by a subsequent mortgage of Harnam Kaur, for a declaration that the gift of the lands made by Harnam Kaur to Kirpal Kaur and the mortgage of 1936 were illegal and were not binding on the collaterals who were the then reversionary heirs of Ram Ditta. The finding of fact recorded in the case was that Harnam Kaur took possession of the lands on the death of her husband Ram Ditta in 1920 and obtained mutation on the settlement record showing her as the owner of the lands in place of Ram Ditta. She made a gift of the lands to her daughter Kirpal Kaur. In these circumstances the suit was filed by collaterals of Ram Ditta and in the amended written statement both the ladies had raised the plea of adverse possession. On these findings the law laid down by the Supreme Court was to the following effect:
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 31 - A K Sarkar - Full Document

Malik Harikishan Singh vs Malik Partap Singh on 2 May, 1938

11. It was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the property being ancestral it was coparcenery in the hands of the petitioners and Smt. Dulari and the share was undefined and consequently Smt. Dulari could not be iheld to be an independent tenant of 2/3rd share. In the first place, no female can be a co-parcener although a female can be a member of a joint Hindu family. See Article 214 of Mulla's 'Hindu Law', Fourteenth Edition. Secondly, the Kkewat entries clearly specify 2/3rd share of Smt. Dulari in different years and, therefore, there was a disruption in the jointness of the estate. Even where there is no proof of actual partition of the joint estate at any time, there can be a partition of the joint property without an actual division of the property by metes and bounds. According to the Mitakshara law, by which the parties are governed, partition consists in defining the shares of the coparceners in the joint property, and a physical division of the property is not necessary. Once the shares are defined, there is a severance of the joint status. See Malik Harkishan Singh v. Malik Partap Singh, 1938 All LJ 763 = (AIR 1938 PC 189). In these circumstances the objection that the shares remained undefined and. therefore; 2/3rd share could not be predicated of Smt. Dulari is untenable. The ultimate result of the acquisition of her rights by Smt. Dulari in her independent capacity was that even what might have originally been & joint tenancy was transformed into a tenancy in common. There is no manner of doubt that Smt. Dulari who is recorded as a Bhumidhar with respect to 2/3rd share has an absolute interest in the same and could alienate it by means of a gift and, therefore, the donees impleaded in this writ petition as respondents Noa 6 to 9 acquired a good title from the donor.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1