Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.23 seconds)

Appan Patra Chariar vs V.S. Srinivasa Chariar And Four Ors. on 6 February, 1917

As regards the decision in Patra Chariar v. Srinivasa Chariar (1917) I.L.R. 40 Mad. 1122, I may observe that none of the authorities which I have cited are referred to there. Further, the case is distinguishable on the facts. In that case the alienation in favour of the daughter was made by the father with the consent of his adult son who was his coparcener and also with the consen of the testator's wife who was the mother of an infant coparcener. We have no doubt been referred to certain oases in which the Privy Council have suggested that a will which would otherwise be invalid might become operative by virtue of the consent of those coparceners, but no such question has actually come before ' them for decision. Looking at the matter on principle, it might seem that a will made by one coparcener with the assent of all the other coparceners would be like a settlement or family arrangement between all the coparceners to take effect from the death of the coparcener who was the testator, unless that coparcener in the meantime revoked it. It is not necessary to consider that question in the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Lakshman Dada Naik vs Ramchandra Dada Naik on 2 August, 1876

It has been contended before us, and certain general dicta of the Privy Council have been referred to, to the effect that testamentary capacity is coextensive with the right of making gifts infer virus. That that principle has not a universal application is shown by the decision of the Privy Council in Lakshman Dada Naik v. Ramchandra Dada Naik (1880) I.L.R. 5 Bom. 48, p.c., which expressly approved the decision of the Madras High Court to which I have just referred.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

Kunwar Brijraj Singh vs Kunwar Sheodan Singh on 5 May, 1913

In Brijraj Singh v. Sheodan Singh (1913) I.L.R. 35 All. 337, p.c., the facts were entirely different. The joint family consisted in that case of a father and three sons, and although the document which the father executed purported to be a will, it was acted upon by all the parties while the father was alive, so that the effect was that partition was created in the joint ancestral properties.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Parvatibai Shankar vs Bhagwant Pandharinath Pathak on 22 June, 1915

Whatever property is so completely under the control of the testator that he may give it away in specie during his lifetime, he may also devise by will. Hence, a man may bequeath his separate, or his self-acquired, property; and one who, by the extinction of coparceners, holds all his property in severalty, may devise it, even in Malabar and in Canara under Alya Santana law, so as to defeat the claims of remote heirs. The rule is however not universal : and though a manager can dispose of a small portion of the family property in favour of. the female members of the family by gift inter viros, he cannot do so by will Parvatibai v. Bhagwant, Vishwanath Pathak (1915) I.L.R. 39 Bom. 593.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1