Jaisri Sahu vs Rajdewan Dubey And Others on 28 April, 1961
22. The principles relating to the widow's power to alienate property were dealt with by the Supreme Court in JAISRI v. RAJDEWAN , which are as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)Rani & Anr vs Santa Bala Debnath & Ors on 14 October, 1970
23. It is held in RANI v. SANTA BALA as under:
Mr. Thanisias (Deceased) And Nine ... vs Ms.Selvam Ammal (Died) And Four Others on 5 October, 1999
32. There are decisions, viz., THANISIAS (DECEASED) v. MS.SELVAM AMMAL(DIED) , ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL v. BALWANT BABUSAHEB PATIL and KANNAPPAN v. PARGUNAN , wherein it is held that the plaintiff can contend adverse possession only when he admits that another person has got title.
Annasaheb Bapusaheb Patil & Ors. Etc. ... vs Balwant And Balasaheb Babusaheb ... on 6 January, 1995
32. There are decisions, viz., THANISIAS (DECEASED) v. MS.SELVAM AMMAL(DIED) , ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL v. BALWANT BABUSAHEB PATIL and KANNAPPAN v. PARGUNAN , wherein it is held that the plaintiff can contend adverse possession only when he admits that another person has got title.
Kannappan vs Pargunan And 9 Others on 20 August, 1999
32. There are decisions, viz., THANISIAS (DECEASED) v. MS.SELVAM AMMAL(DIED) , ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL v. BALWANT BABUSAHEB PATIL and KANNAPPAN v. PARGUNAN , wherein it is held that the plaintiff can contend adverse possession only when he admits that another person has got title.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Hurry Mohan Rai vs Gonesh Chunder Doss And Ors. on 16 June, 1884
"Besides legal necessity, a widow or other limited heir may alienate the estate 'for the benefit of the estate'. An alienation of property to meet the costs of litigation necessary for preserving the estate is alienation 'for the benefit of the estate'. So too is alienation for making necessary repairs to properties belonging to the estate; so also is an exchange of land for effective management of the estate. However, alienation for developing or improving the properties is not one 'for the benefit of the estate', though it may bring additional income, and it does not bind the reversioners (HURRY v. GONESH (1884) 10 Cal 823)".
1