Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.26 seconds)
Deleted (Salma Begam) Legal Hair vs Deleted (Mehrunnisha) on 1 July, 2022 cites

Mullick Abdool Guffoor And Anr. vs Muleka And Ors. on 22 July, 1884

7. Previously, the Rule of law was thought to be so strict that it was said that land in the possession of a usurper (or wrongdoer) or of a lessee or a mortgagee cannot be given away, see Dorrul Mokhtar, Book on Gift, p. 635 cited in Mullic Abdool Guffoor v. Muleka. But the view now prevails that there can be a valid gift of property in the possession of a lessee or a mortgagee and a gift may be sufficiently made by delivering constructive possession of the property to the donee. Some authorities still take the view that a property in the possession of a usurper cannot be given away, but this view appears to us to be too rigid. The donor may lawfully make a gift of a property in the possession of a trespasser. Such a gift is valid, provided the donor either obtains and gives possession of the property to the donee or does all that he can to put it within the power of the donee to obtain possession.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Maimuna Bibi And Anr. vs Rasool Mian And Ors. on 4 April, 1990

"10. It is settled law that oral heba is permissible under the Mohammendan law and to constitute valid gift donor should divest himself completely of all ownership and dominion over the subject of the gift. The case of Maimuna Bibi and Anr. v. Rasool Mtan and Ors., can be referred to in this context. It is incumbent on the defendants/appellants to prove their case of oral heba. The learned trial judge has specifically observed in the impugned judgment that in order to prove that oral heba made by Bibijan Bibi in favour of her husband Dilbahar Molla the defendants have not adduced any cogent and reliable evidence. The oral heba, as contended by the appellants, was made by Bibijan Bibi in favour of Dilbahar Molla in respect of 1.36 acres of land appertaining to suit plots 340, 341 and 342 in 1348 B.S."
Patna High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - S B Sinha - Full Document

Syed Shah Ghulam Ghouse Mohiuddin And ... vs Syed Shah Ahmed Moriuddin Kamisul ... on 17 February, 1971

Hence, it is prayed that the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Court as well as by the learned First Appellate Court may kindly be set aside and the substantial question law framed by this Court may be answered in favour of the plaintiffs. In support of his contention, he would place reliance upon the judgment rendered by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in Mahila Bajrangi (Dead) through Lrs. Vs. Badribai1, Vidya Devi alias Vidya vati (Dead) by Lrs. Vs. Prem Prakash & others 2 & Syed Shah Gulam Ghouse Mohiuddin & others Vs. Syed Shah Ahmad Mohiuddin Kamisul Qadri (Dead) by his legal representatives & others3.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 64 - A N Ray - Full Document
1   2 3 Next