Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)P. Srinivasamurthy vs P. Leelavathy And 6 Others on 7 March, 2000
28. I am not dealing the case laws cited by Shri Jaiswal, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants except the decision of the Madras High Court P. Srinivasamurthy (supra), because all those decisions pertain to Section 4 of the Indian Partition Act which is having different connotation, ambit and scope and it has nothing to do with Section 22 of the Act.
Sm. Nirupoma Basak And Ors. vs Baidyanath Pramanick on 21 December, 1984
In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on B. Rajamma v. S. Ananthakrishnan Potti , Santosh Kr. Mitra v. Kalipada Das and Ors. , P. Srinivasamurthy v. P. Leelavathi , Bharatsingh v. Rishi Kumar and Ors. , Nirupoma Basak v. Baidyanath Pramanick and Ghantesher Ghosh v. Madan Mohan Ghosh and Ors. .
Ghantesher Ghosh vs Madan Mohan Ghosh & Ors on 18 September, 1996
In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on B. Rajamma v. S. Ananthakrishnan Potti , Santosh Kr. Mitra v. Kalipada Das and Ors. , P. Srinivasamurthy v. P. Leelavathi , Bharatsingh v. Rishi Kumar and Ors. , Nirupoma Basak v. Baidyanath Pramanick and Ghantesher Ghosh v. Madan Mohan Ghosh and Ors. .
B. Rajamma vs S. Ananthakrishnan Potti And Ors. on 10 August, 1990
In support of his contention, learned senior counsel has placed reliance on B. Rajamma v. S. Ananthakrishnan Potti , Santosh Kr. Mitra v. Kalipada Das and Ors. , P. Srinivasamurthy v. P. Leelavathi , Bharatsingh v. Rishi Kumar and Ors. , Nirupoma Basak v. Baidyanath Pramanick and Ghantesher Ghosh v. Madan Mohan Ghosh and Ors. .
Valliyil Sreedevi Amma vs Subhadra Devi And Ors. on 20 January, 1975
In this regard I may profitably rely Division Bench decision of the Kerala High Court Valliyil Sreedevi Amma v. Subhadra Devi and Ors. wherein it has been held that if a co-heir transferring his interest in violation of Section 22(1), the remedy of other co-heirs to acquire transferred interest is by way of suit and such suit is maintainable and the transfer made by co-heir of his share is voidable and not void. Thus the transfer made by defendant No. 1, who is a co-heir is voidable and the suit can be brought at the instance of other co-heirs challenging the alienation to a stranger since it is a voidable transaction. I may further add that it is the sale against the right of co-heirs that would constitute an infringement of the right conferred under Section 22(1) of the Act. In other words, the cause of action is a sale to a third party without reference to the other co-heirs who might have purchased the property for the proper price, if it had been offered to them.
Section 4 in The Partition Act, 1977 [Entire Act]
Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Ghewarwala Jain vs Hanuman Prasad And Anr. on 7 January, 1980
The decision of this court Ghewarwala Jain (supra) was also distinguished.