Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.68 seconds)
Smt. Rattan Devi vs Jagadhar Mal And Ors. on 4 February, 1955 cites

Nirman Bahadur vs Fateh Bahadur Singh And Ors. on 25 July, 1929

4. Counsel submits that there was a partition between Mahadeo Parshad and his two sons and his wife which was as a result of the filing of the suit which was started on 30-10-1942 and which result-ed in a decree dated 4-5-1943. Under Hindu Law a partition could be effeteed by the father during his lifetime: see paragraph 323 of Mulla's Hindu Law at page 422 where it is stated that for such a parti-tion the consent of the sons is not necessary: see also -- 'Nirman Bahadur v. Fateh Bahadur', AIR 1929 All 963 (A).
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

H. Mahomed Ishack Sahib vs Mahomed Moideen And Anr. on 10 March, 1922

In my opinion, to a case of this kind the rule laid down by the Lahore High Court in -- 'Mahomed Ishaq v. Mahomed Yusuf', AIR 1927 Lah 420 (B), is applicable. There it was held that on proof of debts being actually due at the time of transfer, the intent to defeat or delay creditors will be presumed; and if there are no debts due at the time and the transferor runs into indebtedness subsequently, the presumption will be regulated by the circumstances of each particular case. At p. 421, Tek Chand J. observed:
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Km. Kr. Km. Kuppan Chettiar And Ors. vs Masa Goundan And Ors. on 14 December, 1936

10. Lastly, reliance is placed on a judgment of the Madras High Court in -- Firm Schwebo v. Sub-biah', AIR 1944 Mad 381 (G), where four propositions were laid down by Patanjali Sastri J. differing from Varadachariar J. in -- 'Kuppan Chettiar v. Masa Goundan', AIR 1937 Mad 424 (H), but according to Hindu Law the property which is available for partition is that which is left after a provision has been made for joint family debts: see -- 'K. Venkureddi v. M. Venku Reddi', AIR 1927 Mad 471 (FB) (I) and that seems in my opinion, to be the proper view to take of Hindu Law on this subject.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1