Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.53 seconds)
M.Abdul Hasan vs A.Maimoonamal cites

Commissioner Of Gift Tax, Ernakulam vs Abdul Karim Mohd. (Dead) By Lrs on 10 July, 1991

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the doctrine of marz-ul-maut and erred in holding that the alleged Will Ex.B.1 was not affected by the doctrine of marz-ul-maut and was executed by Mohamed Zackaria while in sound disposing state of mind bequeathing specific items of properties to various persons and therefore, Ex.B.1 is a valid document and declining the claim of the plaintiff in respect of "A" schedule property. The learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the father, Mohamed Zackaria was suffering from paralysis for 3 years and Ex.B.1 was dated 17.3.1983 and he died on 6.4.1983 i.e. within 20 days from the date of Ex.B.1 and the fact that he was not in a position to move about was also confirmed by the fact that the Registrar was invited to the house to register the Will and these facts would prove that the deceased Mohamed Zackaria was in his death bed and was under the apprehension of death and therefore, even assuming that he executed a Will, the same was affected by the doctrine of marz-ul-maut and relied upon the judgments reported in A.I.R. 1922 Privy Council 391 [A.E.Salayjee v. Fatima Bi Bi], AIR 1957 NAGPUR 84 [Izzul Jabbar Khan Azizul Jabbar and others v. Chairman District Council Kuchery Ward Seoni District Chhindwara and others] and (1991) 3 SCC 520 [Commissioner of Gift Tax, Ernakulam vs. Abdul Karim Mohd.(dead) by LRs], in support of her contention.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 4 - K J Shetty - Full Document

Abdul Manan Khan vs Mirtuza Khan And Ors. on 8 February, 1990

and even if there is bequest in favour of the 9th defendant, who is an outsider, he was not given any property more than the 1/3rd properties belonged to the testator and consent of the legal heirs can be inferred by their conduct and there was no necessity to have a written consent and relied upon the judgment reported in AIR 1991 Patna 154 [Abdul Manan Khan v. Mirtuza Khan] and others.
Patna High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Bhoona Bi (Died) By L.R. vs Gujar Bi Alias Hamida Bi, Wife Of Abdul ... on 12 January, 1972

16. It is also held by this Court in the Judgment reported in AIR 1973 Madras 154 [Bhooma Bi vs. Gujar Bi] that total evidence and all circumstances should be examined and a finding of gift being made in marz-ul-maut cannot be given when it is not alleged in the plaint or raised at the trial. It is not for the Court to raise the point suo motu. In the judgment reported in (1991) 3 SCC 520 cited supra, the very same principles were reiterated in the case of marz-ul-maut and having regard to the evidence in that particular case, it was held that the gift was a marz-ul-maut.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

A.E. Salayjee vs Fatima Bibi on 16 November, 1922

8. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the doctrine of marz-ul-maut and erred in holding that the alleged Will Ex.B.1 was not affected by the doctrine of marz-ul-maut and was executed by Mohamed Zackaria while in sound disposing state of mind bequeathing specific items of properties to various persons and therefore, Ex.B.1 is a valid document and declining the claim of the plaintiff in respect of "A" schedule property. The learned counsel submitted that admittedly, the father, Mohamed Zackaria was suffering from paralysis for 3 years and Ex.B.1 was dated 17.3.1983 and he died on 6.4.1983 i.e. within 20 days from the date of Ex.B.1 and the fact that he was not in a position to move about was also confirmed by the fact that the Registrar was invited to the house to register the Will and these facts would prove that the deceased Mohamed Zackaria was in his death bed and was under the apprehension of death and therefore, even assuming that he executed a Will, the same was affected by the doctrine of marz-ul-maut and relied upon the judgments reported in A.I.R. 1922 Privy Council 391 [A.E.Salayjee v. Fatima Bi Bi], AIR 1957 NAGPUR 84 [Izzul Jabbar Khan Azizul Jabbar and others v. Chairman District Council Kuchery Ward Seoni District Chhindwara and others] and (1991) 3 SCC 520 [Commissioner of Gift Tax, Ernakulam vs. Abdul Karim Mohd.(dead) by LRs], in support of her contention.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Muhammad Asad Ali vs Barkat-Un-Nissa on 25 February, 1895

10. On the other hand, Mr. R.Natarajan, learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that admittedly, 1/4th of "A" schedule property was gifted by the father to the first defendant on the eve of marriage and the remaining 3/4th share was in the possession of the father and under the Will Ex.B.1, he bequeathed specific portions to his daughters and sons-in-law and also to the plaintiff and the Will was also proved by examining DW.2 and no evidence was adduced by the plaintiff that on the date of execution of the Will, the father was in death bed. Therefore, the Trial Court rightly held that the Will was validly proved and the plaintiff cannot claim any right in the "A" schedule property and therefore, there is no need to interfere with the judgment and decree of the Trial Court. He also submitted that the plaintiff also accepted the will and got possession of the portion bequeathed to him and therefore, it is not open to him to challenge the Will later and relied upon the judgment reported in A.I.R.1917 Oudh.326 [Wali Muhammad v. Daulat-Un-Nissa. He also submitted that when a bequest is made to heirs, the bequest is invalid unless the other heirs consented to it after the death of the testator.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1