Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (0.19 seconds)
Fayazul Rahman vs Muhammad Usman And Ors. on 14 June, 1909 cites

Sumsuddin Gulam Hoosein vs Abdul Hoosein Kalimoodin on 3 September, 1906

While in the earlier case of Balkrishna Trimbak Tendulkar v. Savitribai 3 B. 54 it was held by a Division Bench of this Court that "though a Hindu for valuable consideration relinquished his share in the property of his adoptive father and agreed not to claim it in that father's life-time, still on the death of the adoptive father intestate he was entitled to claim by inheritance in priority to the widow" Sumsuddin Goolam Husein v. Abdul Husein Kalimuddin 31 B. 165 at pp. 171 to 173.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Sham Sundar Lal And Ors. vs Achhan Kunwar And Anr. on 27 July, 1898

31. Thus in Sham Sunder Lal v. Achhan Kunwar (1805) 3 Mer. 667 at p. 671 Lord Davey in delivering the judgment of the Judicial Committee, says "What was the position of the parties at the respective dates of the execution of these two bonds? At the date of the bond of 1877 Halas Kuar, as the heir of Khairati Lal, was the owner of his estate, but with a restricted power of alienation. Achhan Kunwar was next in succession, and would, if she survived her mother, become her father's heir, and takes the estate subject to the same restriction. Enayet Singh was one of the two male heirs next in succession to the restricted estates who would be full owners in the event of their surviving their grandmother and mother. Enayet was, moreover, a minor. At the date of the bond of 1881 Achhan Kunwar was owner of the property for a daughter's estate with restricted power of alienation, and Enayet Singh was one of the heirs-apparent. At both dates Enayet Singh was living in his father's house and dependent upon him. In 1877 neither Achhan Kunwar nor Enayet Singh (even if he had been of age) could by Hindu Law make a disposition of or bind their expectant interests nor does the deed apply to any but rights in possession, and in 1881 Enayet Singh was equally incompetent to do so, though the deed purports to bind future rights."
Allahabad High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 43 - Full Document

Rebati Mohan Das vs Ahmed Khan on 20 March, 1907

29. Mukerji, J. in Rebati Mohan Das v. Ahmed Khan 9 C.L.J. 50 : 1 Ind. Cas. 590 though agrees with Sir Lawrence Jenkins in holding that a Muhammadan cannot bind his chance as an heir-apparent reserves his opinion on the question whether Section 6 (a) of the Transfer of Property Act makes the principle that equity considers that done which ought to have been done entirely inapplicable. With due respect to the learned Judge the conclusion arrived. at by him that a Muhammadan cannot bind his chance as an heir-apparent to succeed does not follow from the rule that such a chance is untransferable unless Section 6 (a) is taken to make the principle that equity considers that done which ought to have been done inapplicable by giving the term "untransferable" a meaning which will include unassignable in equity. If that principle, notwithstanding Section 6 (a), continues to be applicable, valid contracts for valuable considerations relating to expectancies will have to be uphold by the Courts in British India as Courts of Equity and a relinquishment by a Muhammadan of his chance for valuable consideration will be binding upon him. To hold that a Muhammadan may not bind his chance depends upon holding that the application of the principle defeats the provision of law and that that principle is, therefore, not applicable to such a relinquishment.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Nund Kishore Lal vs Kanee Ram Tewary on 10 January, 1902

32. Here then we have Lord Davey's opinion that a Hindu reversioner not only could not dispose of, but could not bind his expectant rights. It is said that this is only a dictum, but it is the dictum of the highest judicial authority, and in at least two later cases has effect been given to this expression of opinion Nund Kishore Lal v. Kanee Ram Tewary 29 C. 355 and Manickam Pillai v. Pamalinga Pillai 29 M. 120.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Manickam Pillai vs Ramalinga Pillai And Ors. on 21 August, 1905

32. Here then we have Lord Davey's opinion that a Hindu reversioner not only could not dispose of, but could not bind his expectant rights. It is said that this is only a dictum, but it is the dictum of the highest judicial authority, and in at least two later cases has effect been given to this expression of opinion Nund Kishore Lal v. Kanee Ram Tewary 29 C. 355 and Manickam Pillai v. Pamalinga Pillai 29 M. 120.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next