Shantaya Kotraya Bannadnula vs Mallappa Basappa Shettar on 6 December, 1937
It is indeed remarkable that though the decision in -- 'Shantaya v. Mallappa', AIR 1938 Bom 560 (B).
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.29 seconds)Pratapmull Agarwalla vs Dhanabati Bibi on 4 November, 1935
11. It has been urged by Mr. Datar on the strength of a Privy Council decision in -- 'Pratapmull Agarwalla v. Dhanabati Bibi', AIR 1936 PC 20 (G), that the mother is not entitled to a share on the disruption of the coparcenary and that she is entitled to a share when a partition is effected by metes and bounds, and on the strength of that authority it is urged by Mr. Datar that even assuming we come to the conclusion that on a partition the wife would have a share, that share would not come into existence till the partition is made by metes and bounds.
Sakarchand Satidas And Ors. vs Narayan Savla Vani And Ors. on 22 August, 1950
2. The question that we have to consider is, what is the share to which the plaintiffs are entitled in the property which was alienated by de. fendant 1? An earlier Pull Bench was constituted, the Judgment of which is reported in -- 'Sakarehand Satidas v. Narayan Savla', , and there it was held that under Hindu law the share of the alienee of Joint family property is to be determined at the date of the alienation and not at the time when the alienee asks for an equitable partition of the property.
Naro Gopal Kulkarni vs Paragowda Basagowda on 28 September, 1916
"The law in Bombay as settled in this presidency by 'Naro Gopal v. Paragowda Basagowda', AIR 1916 Bom 130 (D) (to which we shall presently refer) is that the alienee gets the share which the alienor would have got if a partition had taken place at the date of the alienation".
Ramchandra Mulchand vs Bhagwan Gopal And Anr. on 29 November, 1945
What is to be remembered is that in that case the wife was already dead and the claim was being made by the two sons and the two sons were seeking to augment their share by claiming the share of the mother. That claim was rejected by me and I pointed out that the wife would have had a share if the partition had taken place when the alienation was made, and therefore what the sons were; entitled to was only the share to which they would have been entitled as if the partition had taken place at the date of the alienation.
Hushensab Rajesab Allabaxar vs Basappa Puradappa Hallikeri on 24 June, 1932
was cited before us on the main point considered by us, the respondents' learned Advocate did not appear to have challenged the correctness of the other proposition laid down in the said case in regard to the mother's share; and a contrary decision on the same point in -- 'Hushensab v. Basappa'. 34 Bom LR 1325 (C), was not even mentioned in the arguments, and has not been considered by us. Therefore, we do not look upon this judgment as laving down that when an alienation takes place the share of the wife is not to be considered in deciding what passes to the alienee.
1