Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.27 seconds)
Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Bhim Chandra Ghosh on 16 March, 1956 cites

Jogeswar Narain Deo vs Ram Chandra Dutt And Anr. on 25 June, 1893

It seems to me that much can be said in favour of the view taken in the above case that it is not right to base on the pronouncement of the Privy Council mentioned above that no Hindu can create a joint estate in favour of two persons, but that such an interest being ordinarily unknown to Hindu law a grant by a Hindu should be presumed not to have created a joint estate but that presumption can be rebutted by a clear indication of an intention of the grantor to create a joint estate.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 85 - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, West ... vs Pulin Behari Dey. on 1 September, 1949

Assuming that we agree with Mr, Meyer that the proposition of the law as stated in --'Pulin Behari De's case (A)', that a Hindu cannot by a grant create a joint estate should not be accepted as correct, I do not think it can be doubted for a moment that the presumption is in favour of a tenancy in common and only the clearest indication of a contrary intention will justify that a joint estate was created.
Calcutta High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Bahu Rani vs Rajendra Bakhsh Singh on 12 January, 1933

In -- 'Pulin Behari De's case (A), Harries C. J., with whom Chatterjee J., agreed, relying mainly on the pronouncement of the Judicial Committee in the Privy Council in -- 'Bahu Rani v. Rajendra Bakhsh Singh , reiterating what they have stated earlier in 'Jogeswar Narain Deo v. Ram Chund Dutt', 23 Ind App 37 (D), that the principle of joint tenancy as known to English law was unknown to Hindu law except in the case of the joint property of an undivided Hindu family governed by Mitakshara held that a joint tenancy cannot be created by a Hindu either by a grant inter vivos or by a will.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 24 - Full Document

Panchanan Das vs Commissioners Of Income-Tax, West ... on 13 December, 1950

In -- Panchanan Das v. Commr. of Income-tax, W. B.', 20 ITR 57 (G), there was a provision in the Arpan-nama that the Sebait for the time being shall be able to make modifications and alterations of the amounts specified in the document for expenditure on different items according to his discretion and according to the times. In that case Harries C. J. and Banerjee J., held that as the Sebait was entitled to vary the amounts to be spent for the two deities, the shares of the deities could not possibly be regarded as determinate. That decision is of no assistance in the present case as here, as I have pointed out above, Clause 5a of the Arpannama does not give the Sebait a right to alter the amounts as between the two deities.
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1