Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.21 seconds)
Col. Vinod K. Mayne (Retd.) vs Brig. Deepak K. Myne And Ors. on 1 March, 2007 cites

Sri Raja Venkata Narashimha Appa Row vs Sri Raja Parthsarathy Appa Row on 10 December, 1913

It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense.... But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document (Venkata Narasimha's case (supra) and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar .
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 34 - Full Document

Gnanambal Ammal vs T. Raju Ayyar And Others on 21 October, 1950

It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense.... But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document (Venkata Narasimha's case (supra) and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar .
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 119 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962

(4) The Court must accept, it possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expressions inoperative. The Court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favor of a construction which does not create any such hiatus Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das .
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 96 - Full Document

Badri Narain Prasad Choudhary And Ors. vs Nil Ratan Sarkar on 10 March, 1978

In the case of Badri Narain Prasad (Supra), the Supreme Court had ennunciated equitable principle of Just Compensation, which is to be paid in lieu of the share of other co-owners of the property where the property was incapable of being division in specie. The Court permitted the process of owelty to be adopted. The ancillary issue before such a principle could be applied to, is what is the just compensation? Just compensation normally should be the market value of the property, which is divided into prescribed shares or at least an amount, which is quite close to such an amount. None of the ingredients of the aforesaid judgment are satisfied in the present case inasmuch as the property has been partitioned and by such partition majority of the shareholders are satisfied. Secondly, the appellant has never offered what is the just compensation payable according to him. Just because he is in possession of portion of the property in excess of his share, he cannot be permitted to continue to enjoy such benefit without discharging his obligation towards the other co-owners. There is no justification or reasonable ground made out by the appellant, which could justify interference by us with the impugned judgment.
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 45 - Full Document
1   2 Next