Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.85 seconds)The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Kisansing Mohansing Balwar And Ors. vs Vishnu Balkrishna Jogalekar on 17 August, 1950
(15) We have emphasised the feature of the transaction, that the bulk of the properties partitioned were the self-acquired properties of the father, the assessee. The only joint family property which was also ancestral was the house in Ayalur Muthiah Mudali Street, for which was later substituted the house in Varadarajulu Naidu St. Nonetheless the transaction evidenced by Annexure B was one of partition. As pointed out in Kisansing v. Vishnu, :
Sardar Indra Singh And Sons Ltd vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax,West ... on 23 September, 1953
(24) The learned counsel for the department contended that, where a coparcerner throws his self-acquired properties into the hotchpot for purposes of partition, there is an element of transfer, within the meaning of Sec. 16(3)(a)(iv). The learned counsel referred to the observations of Manohar Lall, J, in Indra Singh v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1943-11 ITR 16 at p. 33 (AIR 1943 Pat 169 at p. 174) :
R. Subramania Iyer vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 11 April, 1955
"...............there is no evidence that all his assets and liabilities including the agency business were transferred to such family either then or later. The first time we hear of the family possessing the assets in question is the deed of dissolution in which there is a recital to the effect "(The Tribunal consistently referred to anneuxre B, the deed of partition, as the deed of dissolution) "This certainly cannot constitute an unequivocal declaration of the admitted individual investing his self-acquired properties with the character of joint family property referred to in Subramania Iyer v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras,
(11) The conclusions of the Tribunal recorded in paragraph 3 of its judgment ran :
Appathurai Aiyer'S Daughter ... vs Nanit Pattar'S Son Krishna Pattar And ... on 26 November, 1915
The observations of Manohar Lall, J were similar to those of Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., in Thyalambal v. Krishna Pattar, 32 Ind Cas 955 at p. 960 : (AIR 1917 Mad 706 at p. 711).
Ramaswami Nayakar vs Raju Padayachi And Ors. on 11 September, 1925
The observations of Srinivasa Aiyangar, J., cannot therefore be viewed even as obiter dicta. The correctness of these observations was doubted by Odgers, J., in Ramaswami Nayakar v. Raja Padayachi, 51 Mad LJ 167 : (AIR 1926 Mad 963). Odgers, J, too died not record any concluded opinion of his on the question, whether conversion of individual property into joint family property could be effected only by a transfer.
1