Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Kale & Others vs Deputy Director Of Consolidation Ors on 21 January, 1976
In Kale and Others v Deputy Director of Consolidation and
Others, the law relating to family settlement has been laid down in lucid and
comprehensive manner by reference to catenation of decisions of the Supreme
Court, Privy Council and other High Court in para 9 of the judgment, wherein, it
has been held thus:"
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gulam Abbas vs Haji Kayyum Ali & Ors on 18 September, 1972
The Supreme Court in Gulam Abbas v Haji Kayyam Ali and
Others, has held thus:"
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
The Registration Act, 1908
Latafat Husain And Ors. vs Hidayat Husain And Ors. on 15 January, 1936
Para 12.As already indicated, while the Madras view is based upon
the erroneous assumption that a renunciation of a claim to inherit in future is in
itself illegal or prohibited by Muslim Law, the view of the Allahabad High Court,
expressed by Suleman, C.J., in Latafat Husain v Hidayat Hussain, while fully
recognising that "under the Mohammadan Law relinquishment by an heir who
has no interest in the lifetime of his ancestor is invalid and void", correctly lays
down that such an abandonment may, nevertheless, be part of a course of
conduct which may create an estoppel against claiming the right at a time when
the right of inheritance has accrued".
Modinsaheb Peersaheb Peerzade And ... vs Smt. Meerabi And Others on 5 September, 2000
12. Counsel for the defendant has relied upon the case titled as
Modinsaheb Peersaheb Peerzade & Ors. Vs. Smt. Meerabi & Ors., ILR 2000
KAR 3716, wherein it has been held that
"15. It is wellrecognised right in Muslim Law that an heir apparent
can relinquish the right of chance of succession in an oral family settlement or
family arrangement.
1