Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Zubaida vs Mahaboob Bivi on 7 June, 2010 cites

Sulaika Bivi And Six Others vs Rameeza Bivi And 10 Others on 20 October, 2000

He would again cite yet another judgment of this court for the same proposition of law reported in 2000 (IV) CTC 454 in between Sulaika Bivi and Six others vs. Rameeza Bivi and 10 others. He would also submit in his argument that the valid gift has to be completed with the declaration of the gift by the donor to the donee. However, in this case the recitals of the gift deed Ex.B.2 would go to show that the possession was not handed over nor the title to the suit property was divested from the donor.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Shanmugham And Others vs Saraswathi And Others on 9 April, 1996

On a careful reading of the judgments cited, we could understand that the failure to implead the legal heirs of deceased person was found fatal to the case and failure to implead the co-sharer as a party to the suit has been found against the plaintiffs, in a suit for partition. This suit is also for partition and separate possession of the suit property. But for the Will and the gift deed the legal heirs of Moosa Rowther namely the plaintiffs 1 to 5, defendants 1 to 5 were all on record. The contention was that the legatee of item 1 of the suit property and the settlee of the item 2 of the suit properties were not made as parties. As far as the suit is concerned the non-joinder of a co-sharer or co-owners are found to be fatal, the lower court had come to a conclusion and gave a finding to the effect that the non-joinder of the first son of 4th defendant and the sons of 4th defendant as legatee and donees Ex.B.1 and B.2 were not necessary parties to the suit and the suit is not bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Against the said finding the respondents 4 and 5 did not prefer any cross objection. Therefore, the said principle laid down by this court in the aforesaid judgments are applicable to the facts of this case. It is also not germane for this court to find that the suit is bad for non-joinder of parties. The said parties necessary to the suit were not legal heirs of the said P.K.Moosa Rowther, but for the Will Ex.B.1 and the 'Hiba gift' deed Ex.B.2. Therefore, this court is of the view that the 'Hiba gift' deed executed by Moosa Rowther in respect of item 2 of the suit property is not valid and the will dated 12.02.1980 in Ex.B1 was valid to an extent of 1/3rd, partition of item 1 of the suit property and that too in favour of the non-heir namely the son of 4th defendant and it is not valid for defendants 3 and 5. Accordingly the remaining 2/3rd share of 1st item of the suit property and the entire 2nd item of the suit property are liable for partition and separate possession as sought for by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are entitled to 7/96 share each out of 2/3rd share of item 1 suit property and in the entire 2nd item of the suit properties. Accordingly all the three points are decided against the respondents 4 and 5.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Ayeeshee Bivi vs K.S.A. Shaik Mohamed Alim Sahib And Ors. on 27 November, 1963

13. He would also submit in his argument that the stipulation imposed in the gift deed that the donee has to maintain the donor till his life time is not a condition at all and physical delivery is not necessary to constitute the Mohamedan gift for that proposition of law, he would cite a judgment of this court reported in AIR 1964 Madras 309 in between Ayeeshee Bivi vs. K.S.A.Shaik Mohamed Alim Sahib and others. He would also submit in his argument that the mere factor that the donor continue to live in the house donated by him is not enough to have that there is delivery of possession.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1