Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.29 seconds)
Bejoy Kumar Nundy vs Ranjeet Kumar Nundy & Ors on 18 September, 2015 cites

Ganesh Chunder Dhur vs Lal Behary Dhur on 29 July, 1936

452] and this decision of the Full Bench was approved of by the Judicial Committee in Ganesh Chunder Dhur v. Lal Behary [63 I.A. 448] and again in Bhabatarini v. Ashalata [70 I.A. 57]. The effect of the first two decisions, as the Privy Council pointed out in the last case, was to emphasize the proprietary element in the shebaiti right, and to show that though in some respects anomalous, it was an anomaly to be accepted as having been admitted into Hindu law from an early date.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Vidya Varuthi Thirtha vs Balusami Ayyar on 5 July, 1921

"11. The exact legal position of a shebait may not be capable of precise definition but its implications are fairly well established. It is settled by the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee in Vidya Varuti v. Balusami [48 I.A. 302] that the relation of a shebait in regard to debutter property is not that of a trustee to trust property under the English law. In English law the legal estate in the trust property vests in the trustee who holds it for the benefit of cestui que trust. In a Hindu religious endowment on the other hand the entire ownership of the dedicated property is transferred to the deity or the institution itself as a juristic person and the shebait or mahant is a mere manager. But though a shebait is a manager and not a trustee in the technical sense, it would not he correct to describe the shebaitship as a 11 mere office. The shebait has not only duties to discharge in connection with the endowment, but he has a beneficial interest in the debutter property. As the Judicial Committee observed in the above case, in almost all such endowments the shebait has a share in the usufruct of the debutter property which depends upon the terms of the grant or upon custom or usage. Even where no emoluments are attached to the office of the shebait, he enjoys some sort of right or interest in the endowed property which partially at least has the character of a proprietary right. Thus, in the conception of shebaiti both the elements of office and property, of duties and personal interest, are mixed up and blended together; and one of the elements cannot be detached from the other. It is the presence of this personal or beneficial interest in the endowed property which invests shebaitship with the character of proprietary rights and attaches to it the legal incidents of property.
Bombay High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 149 - Full Document

Bhabatarini Debi vs Ashalata Debi on 22 January, 1943

452] and this decision of the Full Bench was approved of by the Judicial Committee in Ganesh Chunder Dhur v. Lal Behary [63 I.A. 448] and again in Bhabatarini v. Ashalata [70 I.A. 57]. The effect of the first two decisions, as the Privy Council pointed out in the last case, was to emphasize the proprietary element in the shebaiti right, and to show that though in some respects anomalous, it was an anomaly to be accepted as having been admitted into Hindu law from an early date.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 42 - Full Document

Sm. Raikishori Dassi vs Official Trustee Of West Bengal And Ors. on 21 September, 1959

There have been two other decisions, namely, Kandarpa Mohan Gossain vs. Akhoy Chandra Bose & Anr. reported at AIR 1934 Cal 379 and Raikishori Dassi Vs. Official Trustee of West Bengal & Ors. reported at AIR 1960 Cal 325, holding as a matter of construction that there was an invalid attempt to lay down a line of succession which is not permissible. (Commentary on Hindu Law by J.V. Gupta Volume I, AIR Publication, 4th Edn.) I, accordingly, answer the questions raised in the originating summons as follows:-
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 7 - G K Mitter - Full Document
1   2 Next