Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Satya Kumar Banerjee vs Satya Kirpal Banerjee And Anr. on 17 August, 1909 cites

Gyannessa And Ors. vs Mobarakannessa And Ors. on 14 July, 1897

3. In the first place the Subordinate Judge appears to have held that as the partition was not effected by a registered instrument, it was inoperative in law. This view is entirely opposed to the decision of this Court in a case the correctness of which has not been called in question before us, namely Gyannessa v. Mobarakannessa 25 C. 210 : 2 C.W.N. 91 where it was ruled that a partition of joint property was not an exchange within the meaning of Section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act, and was not by law required to be effected by an instrument in writing.
Calcutta High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Doorga Persad Singh vs Doorga Konwari And Anr. on 17 May, 1878

and Ghintaman Singh v. Nowlahho Konwari 2 I.A. 263 : 1 C. 153 at 161 : 24 W.R. 255 The identical view was followed in the cases of Gavrisankar Rajaram v. Atmaram Prabhuram 18 B. 611 and Bhawani Prasad v. Juggernath 9 C.L.J. 133 : 13 C.W.N. 309 : 3 Ina. Cas 241. In the latter case it was pointed out that if the private partition was partial, the property which had been excluded from partition continued to be joint and so liable to be partitied.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

J. Williams vs Williams And Conran on 16 February, 1878

It was further pointed out in the case just mentioned upon the authority of Williams v. Williams L.R. 2 Ch. App. 294 that a family arrangement might be upheld although there was no right actually in dispute at the time of making it, and the Courts would not be disposed to scan with much nicety the quantum of consideration. It was a mistake to suppose that the doctrine of family arrangement extended no further than to arrangements for the settlement of doubtful or disputed rights. The principle is applicable not merely to cases in which arrangements are made between the members of a family for the preservation of its peace but also to cases in which arrangements are made between them for the preservation of its property. No doubt a family arrangement may be set aside on the ground of mistake, inequality of position, undue influence, coercion, fraud or any other similar ground, but any such allegation must be clearly established.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 51 - Full Document

Hari Narayan Brahme vs Ganpatrav Daji And Anr. on 8 March, 1883

7. The second ground taken on behalf of the appellant raises the question, whether the properties to be partitioned ought to have been determined by the Court before the preliminary decree was made. The second defendant filed a petition on the 21st July 1908 in which he gave a list of ten properties, which, according to him belonged to the estate of his father. When he was examined in Court, he asserted that there were other properties also in the shape of Government promissory notes and ornaments which formed part of the estate, The Subordinate Judge raised an issue on the point as to whether any properties, movable or immovable, had been excluded from the list of joint properties annexed to the plaint, and, if so whether the suit was maintainable. At the trial, however, he omitted to decide the question thus raised. The plaintiff has offered to include in the suit any property which may be proved to be joint property, but he does not admit that he has, to his knowledge, left any property out of the suit. As pointed out in the cases of Hari Narain Brahnie v. Ganpat Rao Daji 7 B. 272 and Ram Lochun Pattuck v. Rughoobur Dyal 15 W.R. 111 all properties established to be joint properties must be included in the suit. But the question, whether a particular property, alleged to be joint, really possesses that character has to be determined before the preliminary decree is made. This is fairly clear from the terms of Section 396 of the Code of 1882 and Order 26 Rules 13 and 14 of the Code of 1908. These provisions of the law contemplate that by the preliminary decree should be ascertained the property to be divided, the parties interested, and their several rights therein.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Dildar Ali Khan vs Bhawani Sahai Singh on 23 April, 1907

11. Two other points of minor importance which were discussed in the course of the argument addressed to us, now require ex-lamination. As regards the order for costs made by the Court below, it has been contended that it is manifestly unjust as it directs each of the parties to bear his own costs up to the date of the preliminary' decree. There is considerable force in this contention. No doubt ordinarily in a suit for partition, pure and simple, as pointed out in the cases of Shama Soonduree Debia v. Messers Jardine Skinner & Co. 12 W.R. 160; Nawab Dildar Khan v. Bhowani Sahai Singh 5 C.L.J. 642 the parties are to bear their own costs of the suit up to the stage of the preliminary decree.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Jogendra Nath Mukerji vs Jugobundhu Mukerji And Anr. (Minor), By ... on 24 November, 1886

4. The second reason given by the Subordinate Judge against the validity of the private partition is equally untenable. He appears to have held that because some of the properties were left joint, the partition was partial and consequently inoperative; a view clearly based upon a confusion of ideas. He has lost sight of the distinction that although there cannot be a partial partition by a suit, partial partition by private arrangement is allowable. The cases of Hari Das Sanyal v. Pran Nath Sanyal 12 C. 566 and Jogendra Nath Mukerji v. Jugobundhu Muherji 14 C. 122 are authorities for the proposition that a partition suit must embrace the entire property jointly owned by the parties and a suit for partition cannot be entertained for the division of a portion only of the joint property. These oases, however, do not support the proposition that a partial partition by private arrangement is inoperative in law.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1