Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)
Mudi Gowda Gowdappa Sankh vs Ram Chandra Ravagowda Sankh on 7 January, 1969 cites

Anant Bhikappa Patil vs Shankar Ramchandra Patil on 26 July, 1943

The decision of the Judicial Committee in Anant v. Shankar (4) was unexpected and revolutionary in character. It is likely that in view of the fluid and uncertain state of the law on this point the two brothers Goudappa and Apparaya decided to execute a bogus deed of partition in order to avoid any legal consequence which may follow if either of the widows should take a son in adoption. We are accordingly of the view that there is proper evidence to support the concurrent finding of the lower courts and there is no reason to disturb that finding.
Bombay High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 86 - Full Document

Balu Sakharam Powar vs Lahoo Sambhaji Tetgura on 16 October, 1936

The cases on this point were considered in 1936 by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Balu Sakharam Powar v. Lahoo Sam-bhaji Tetgura . It was held in that case that where a coparcenary exists at the date of the adoption the adopted son becomes a member, of the coparcenary, and takes his share in the joint property, but where the partition takes place after the termination of the coparcenary by the death, actually or fictionally, of the last surviving coparcener, the adoption by a widow of a deceased coparcener has not the effect of reviving the coparcenary and does not divest property from the heir of the last surviving coparcener (other than the widow) or those claiming through him or her.
Bombay High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 25 - Full Document

Merla Ramanna vs Chelikani Jagannadha Rao on 18 March, 1941

Once the decision is unequivocally expressed, and clearly intimated to his co-sharers, the right of the coparcener to obtain and possess the share to which he admittedly is entitled, is unimpeachable. But in order to operate as a severance of joint status, it is necessary that the expression of intention by the member separating himself from the joint family must be definite and unequivocal. If, however the expression of intention is a mere pretence or a sham, there is in the eye of law no separation of the joint family status. See for instance the decision of the Judicial Committee in Merla Ranumna v. Chelikani Jagannadha Rao and Ors.,
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1