Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)Dayanandan And Anr. vs Venugopal Naidu on 23 July, 1963
So, from the said settlement deed it has to be construed that the entire suit properties have been given to the petitioners. Even under the release deed dated 20.1.1982, the right in the superstructures was also given. The abovesaid facts will clearly establish that the petitioners are the universal donees as cotemplated under Section 128 of the said Act. While dealing with similar issue, Veeraswami, J., as he then was, in the decision in Dayanandan v. Venugopal, has held as follows:-
The Andhra Bank Ltd vs R. Srinivasan And Others on 31 August, 1961
In fact Section 128 of the Transfer of Property Act fastens a personal liability upon the universal donee for all debts due by the donor at the time of the gift though that liability is confined to the extent of the properties comprised in the gift. This aspect, if 1 may say so, with respect, again, does not appear to have been kept in view in AIR 1952 Trav.Co.23. The liability of the universal donee to pay the decree debt of the donor arises not only by reason of the donee accepting the gift and of being the legal representative of the deceased but also by the very terms under which he becomes a universal donee. Though it was conceded by counsel in Andhra Bank Ltd. V. Srinivasan, , that a universal donee would be a legal representative, the Supreme Court was inclined to take the view that even a person who intermeddled with only a part of the estate of a deceased would be his legal representative. The case of a universal donee is a fortiori on a better footing.
Section 2 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Section 50 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
1