Tara Prasanna Sen vs Shaudi Bibi And Ors. on 8 April, 1921
The same principle has been laid down in Tara Prasanna v. Shandi Bibi, 49 Cal. 68: (A. I. R. (9) 1922 Cal.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Tilakdhari Lal vs Khedan Lal on 5 July, 1920
6. In the present case, I am satisfied that the deed of relinquishment (Ex. 3) is, upon its true construction, a deed of gift of Mt. Hasiba of her share in favour of Jabbar. In my opinion, the Calcutta and Allahabad decisions are correct and the gift made by Mt. Hasiba of a mere equity of redemption is valid under the Mohammadan law and effectively conveyed that title of Mt. Hasiba to her brother Jabbar. If this conclusion is correct, it follows that Section 43, T. P. Act would directly operate and the plaintiff a would be entitled to the share of Mt. Hasiba in the property in dispute In Tilakdhari Lal v. Khedan Lal, 47 I. A. 239: (A.I.R. (8) 1921 P. C. 112) Lord Buckmaster stated the rule of estoppel by deed as follows:
Radha Proshad Wasti And Ors. vs Esuf And Ors. on 28 April, 1881
9. On behalf of the respondents the argument was stressed that since Mt. Hajra, Israil, Nikael and Israfeel have not been impleaded, the plaintiffs cannot get a decree for ejectment, But this argument is not tenable. Although a co-sharer by himself cannot get, against a trespasser, a decree for ejectment from the whole of the land, he can get a decree for joint possession to the extent of his share. He has to work out his further rights by means of a suit for I partition. Vide Hulodhur Sein v. Gooroo Das Roy, 20 W. R. 126 ; Radha Proshad v. Esuf, 7 Cal.
Naresh Chandra Basu vs Hayder Sheikh Khan And Ors. on 7 September, 1928
414 : (9 C. L R. 76) and Naresh Chandra v. Haydar Sheikh Khan, 49 C. L. J. 83: (A.I.R. (16) 1929 Gal. 28). In the last case Bankin C.J., observed as follows:
Section 43 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
1