cites: 1623123

1 - 3 of 3 (0.18 seconds)

Lakshmi Ammal vs Meenakshi Ammal And Ors. on 25 March, 1974 cites

Bahinabai Shravan Patil vs Kisanlal Kunjilal Shet And Ors. on 5 April, 1949

11. In Mahabalehwar narayan v. Subramania Sivram, ILR 47 Bom 542 = (AIR 1923 Bom 297) it was held that a share coming to a Hindu on partition belongs absolutely to him and on his being adopted such a share does not become divested. This decision was followed in Bahinabai v. Kisanlal, .

Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - V Bose - Full Document

Shyama Charan Chattopadhaya vs Sricharan Chattopadhya on 6 February, 1929

To the same effect is the decision in Shyama Charan v. Sricharan, AIR 1929 cal 337.

Calcutta High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sandanam Pillai vs Somasundaram Chettiar And Ors. on 4 November, 1936

There must be proof that the ancestral property was sufficient and productive enough and the income from the property was utilised for the purpose of the business Vide Srinivas Krishna Rao v. Narayana Devji, , Sandanam Pillai v. Somasundara Chettiar, 1937-1 Mad LJ 364 = (AIR 1937 Mad 436) & Narayanaswami v. Ratnasabapathi, 1937-2 Mad LJ 906 = (AIR 1938 Mad 136).

Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

Bahinabai Shravan Patil vs Kisanlal Kunjilal Shet And Ors. on 5 April, 1949

Shyama Charan Chattopadhaya vs Sricharan Chattopadhya on 6 February, 1929

Sandanam Pillai vs Somasundaram Chettiar And Ors. on 4 November, 1936