Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.24 seconds)
Tatoba Ganu vs Tarabai And Ors. on 24 January, 1957 cites

Janaki Ammal vs Narayanasami Aiyer on 20 July, 1916

If the managing member is the father, he can, in addition, alienate the family property for the payment of his antecedent debts. A widow may alienate family property for legal necessity. The position of a Hindu widow in respect of the family property Inherited by her is that of owner with certain restrictions upon her power as to disposition of the property. As stated by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Janaki Ammal v. Narayanasami Aiyer, 43 Ind App 201 at p. 209: (AIR 1916 PC 117 at P. 117) (A), "
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 40 - Full Document

Jagesor Pande And Anr. vs Deo Dat Pande And Anr. on 28 May, 1923

It is clear, therefore, that we have to look at this observation in the light of the question which the Privy Council had to decide in determining the question of limitation. Then Mr. Paranjpe has relied upon certain Allahabad rulings and they are Sheo Ghulam v. Badri Narayan, 11 All LJ 798 (CO & Jageshar Pande v. Deo Dat Pande, ILR 45 All 654; (AIR 1924 All 51) (P). In both these cases the view taken is that the deed is only voidable and not void.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Maharaw Kesho Prasad Singh Bahadur vs Chandrika Prasad Singh And Ors. on 3 August, 1922

13. We have referred to all the authorities cited at the Bar on either side and after giving our best attention to the point raised, we are of the opinion that the case in ILR 19 Bom 803 (B) lays down the correct principle and that the contrary principle laid down in ILR 45 Bom 105: (AIR 1921 Bom 413) (C) is with respect, not correct. In view of this conclusion, it must follow, we think, that the decision of the Court below is right.
Patna High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Jinnappa Mahadevappa Kudachi And Ors. vs Chimmava Krishnappa Kochari on 3 December, 1934

In Jinnappa Mahadevappa v. Chimmava Krishnappa . Mr. Justice Rangnekar was dealing with a case of gift. In that case, one Tammanna, a member of a joint family, possessed of considerable property made a gift by a writing registered in favour of his daughter who had nursed him in his illness and for whom he had great affection. The deed of gift having been challenged by his son and grandsons, Mr. Justice Rangnekar observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Lilavati Ganpatrao Kakatikar vs Takappa Bhimappa on 1 July, 1946

With respect, we think this is the correct principle. Then this question arose in Lilavati Ganpatrao v. Takappa Bhimappa. 50 Bom LR 127: (AIR 1948 Bom 315) (P), in which case I had to deal with the question of the validity of a deed of gift. In that case, one Ramchandrappa had, In 1919, made a gift of a small portion of the joint family property to a Swami of Kolhapur for the purpose of building a hostel for Jain students studying in the schools and college at Dharwar. The other members of the family having objected to the deed of gift, a question arose as to whether the deed of gift was valid. The motive, as mentioned in the deed of gift, was said to be "for the meritorious action ¼ lRdk; dkeh ½ **-
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Radhakant Lal vs Mussammat Nazama Begum And Mussammat ... on 14 December, 1917

If this string of authorities is not enough to support the conclusion to which we have come, we have been in a happy position, for this conclusion has been reinforced by a decision of the Privy Council and that decision is reported in Radhakant Lal v. Nazma Begum, ILR 45 Cal 733: (AIR 1917 PC 128) (K). That was a case where one Dringal executed deeds of gift in favour of his concubines and a daughter of one of them and the deeds of gift, were challenged by his son and grandsons and their Lordships of the Privy Council held that the properties purporting to be conveyed to the respondents by the deeds of gift were joint family properties over which Drignel the father of the first, appellant and the grand-father of the other appellants, had no power of disposition and that the appellants were entitled to re-cover the properties.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1   2 Next