Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.50 seconds)
Hirachand Gangji vs Rowji Sojpal on 1 August, 1938 cites

Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar Rai vs Sanatan Singh on 4 April, 1933

7. Before dealing with that question, however, it would be convenient to clear the ground by dealing with a point raised by the Advocate General based on the fact that the parties to the litigation are Jains. He said that the adoption among the Jains is purely secular, and no question of religious efficacy enters into the validity of it, and, therefore, the primary test emphasized by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Amarendra Mansing v. Sanatan Singh (1933) L.R. 60 I.A. 242 : S.C. 35 Bom. L.R. 859 cannot apply to the present case, and the only test would be, whether the adoption interferes with the rights of third parties, and, if it does, it ought to be invalid against his clients. He said that there is no "giving and taking" among the Jains and finally instanced the cases of adoption of an orphan and a married man, which prevail amongst the Jains. He had to concede, however, that it is well established that in this, Presidency the ordinary Hindu law of adoption is applicable to Jains.
Bombay High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 76 - Full Document

Mallappa Bharmappa vs Hanmappa Mardeppa on 21 October, 1919

34. Then Mr. Desai also refers to Mallappa v. Hanmappa (1919) I.L.R. 44 Bom. 29 303 : S.C. 22 Bom. L.R. 203, which is easily intelligible. That was the case of a mother succeeding as an heir to an unmarried son, and in such a case the adoption is recognized by all the decisions in this Court, though as an exception. In the ratio decidendi Sir Norman Macleod says in that case that in making an adoption the mother was not divesting the estate vested in anybody but divesting the estate vested in her as an heir of her son.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Chanbasappa Virappa Bolagondar vs Huchappa Parappa Bolagondar on 26 January, 1938

36. Then, there is an unreported decision of a division bench of this Court, in Chanbasappa v. Huchappa , on which Mr. Desai relies. There were two branches there, one being represented by defendants Nos. 1, 2 and 4 and the other branch consisted of defendant No. 3 and the widow of his father's brother Parappa, who had died in 1923. In 1932, there was a partition between the two branches, and as the result thereof defendant No. 3 took a half share in the property. In 1933, Parappa's widow adopted the plaintiff, and it was held that the adoption was valid against defendant No. 3 and the plaintiff was entitled to a half share in the property held by defendant No. 3 as joint family property. It is clear on these facts that the coparcenary, of which defendant No. 3 was the last surviving coparcener, was alive and subsisting, and that is what the learned Chief Justice held. How this decision supports the plaintiff's case, I am unable to see.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1