Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.31 seconds)
K.G. Shivalingappa (Dead) By Lrs. And ... vs G.S. Eswarappa And Ors. on 23 July, 2004 cites

Nani Bai vs Gita Bai Rama Gunge on 14 April, 1958

"Partition, specially among the coparceners, would be a "Transfer" for purposes of Registration Act 1908 or not has been considered in Nani Bai v. Gita Bai Kom Rama Gunge and it has been held that though a partition may be effected orally, if the parties reduce the transaction to a formal document which was intended to be evidence of partition, it would have the effect of declaring the exclusive title of the coparcener to whom a particular property was allotted (by partition) and thus the document would all within the mischief of Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act under which the document is compulsorily registerable. If, however, that document did not evidence any partition by metes and bounds, it would be outside the purview of that section.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 44 - Full Document

Roshan Singh & Ors vs Zile Singh & Ors on 24 February, 1988

The three branches had been disposing of the properties which had fallen to their shares and had purchased separate properties. The khata entries also indicated that the properties were standing in their names separately. The learned Single Judge has not adverted to or set aside any of the findings recorded by the first Appellate Court. The learned Single Judge has clearly fell in error in reversing the judgment without disturbing any of the findings referred to above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 205 - A P Sen - Full Document
1