Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Vasudeo Dagadulal And Ors. vs Kankoochand Hirachand Visashrimali ... on 2 August, 1950 cites

Manjaya Mudali And Anr. vs Shanmuga Mudali And Seven Ors. on 5 December, 1913

11. This leads us now to the question of what is the relief which the plaintiff is entitled to in the working out of this equity. The position of an alienee of a specific property or of the undivided interest of a coparcener in such property on a general partition is laid down to be that he has an equitable right to have that property or the alienor's share in that property as the case may be assigned to him if it could be done without injustice to the other coparceners. The same is the position of a purchaser at a court-sale according to what we have decided above. That this is the true position is also supported by a decision of the Madras High Court in Manjaya v. Shanmuga, 38 Mad. 684 : (A. I. R. (1) 1914 Mad. 440). The learned Judges of the Madras High Court there held that when a coparcener alienates his share in certain specific family property, the alienee does not acquire any interest in that property but only an equity to enforce his rights in a suit for partition and to have the property alienated set apart for the alienor's share if possible. The cases which we have referred to above were also cited in support of this position as it was enunciated by the learned Judges there. The real question which comes up to be considered in this connection is what it is that the alienee or the purchaser obtains on the alienation or the auction sale. As is well-known, according to the true constitution of an undivided Hindu family, no individual member of the family, whilst it remains undivided, can predicate of the joint and undivided property, that he has a certain definite share therein.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 25 - Full Document
1