Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.78 seconds)Protap Chandra Deo Dhanbal Deb vs Sri Raja Jagadish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deb on 20 June, 1924
Pratap Chandra Deo v. Jagdish Chandra Deo, 54 Indian
Appeals 289=AIR 1927 P.C. 159 ruled that there is no co-
ownership in an impartible estate and that, therefore, no
right of coparcenary. survivorship would arise in an impart-
ible estate.
Anant Bhikappa Patil vs Shankar Ramchandra Patil on 26 July, 1943
In Anant Bhikkappa Patii v. Shankar Ramchandra Patii,
AIR 1943 P.C. 196 at 201 it was held that:
Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar Rai vs Sanatan Singh on 4 April, 1933
In Amrendra Man Singh v. Sanatan Singh, 60 Indian Appeals
242=AIR 1933 P.C. 155 it was held that the zamindari proper-
ty belonged to the adopted son as to the last male owner.
Thus it is settled law that succession to an impartible
estate is
654
governed by rule of primogeniture and the eldest male member
of the family would succeed by survivorship to the imparti-
ble estate. It is seen from the record and it is not contro-
verted even across the Bar that for seven successive genera-
tions, the Jagir estate descended on the eldest male member
of the family by rule of primogeniture.
Shiba Prasad Singh vs Rani Prayag Kumari Debi on 7 April, 1932
In Shiba Prasad's case
(1932), the Board held that it is possible to incorporate
immovable property as a part of the estate, but movable
properties are the separate properties and they cannot be
incorporated and the doctrine of incorporation does not
apply in the words thus:
Chinnathayi Alias Veeralakshmi vs Kulasekara Pandiya Naickerand ... on 14 December, 1951
In Chinnathayi @ Veeralakshmi v, Kulasekara Pandiya
Naicker & Anr. [1952] SCR 24 1 this Court held that the
right to bring about partition of an. impartible estate
cannot be inferred from the power of alienation that the
holder there of may possess. In the case of an impartible
estate the power to divide it amongst the members does not
exist, though the power in the holder to alienate it is
there. This Court further held that:
Parbati Kumari Debi vs Jagadis Chunder Dhabal on 14 November, 1902
In Smt.
Rani Prabha Kumari Dibi v. Jagdish Chunder Dhabal, 29 Indian
Appeals 82=ILR 29 Calcutta 433 (P.C.)
656
the question was regarding succession to an ancestral im-
partible estate and four Mauzas that has been purchased on
behalf of the last holder out of the savings of the estate.
The Board held that there must be evidence to establish the
intention of the holder express Or implied to incorporate
the property as part of the estate. Though the collection of
the rents was by the estate servant and the papers were kept
in the estate, the Board held that the evidence was not
sufficient to hold that the Raja intended to incorporate the
four mauzas with ancestral estate for the purpose of his
succession. The 4 Mauzas must, therefore, follow the rule of
Mitakshara as to self-acquired property.
Bhaiya Janki Pershad Singh vs Bhaiya Dwarka Pershad Singh on 10 June, 1913
In Janki Pershad
Singh v. Dwarka Pershad Singh, 40 Indian Appeals 170=ILR 35
Allahabad 391 P.C. the movable and immovable properties
acquired from the income of the estate and were incorporated
as part of the estate, yet the Board held that the question
whether the properties acquired by an owner becomes part of
the ancestral estate for the purpose of the succession would
be considered from the intention of the holder of the es-
tate. It was held, on facts, that no sufficient evidence was
adduced to establish such an intention.
Murtaza Husain Khan vs Muhammad Yasin Ali Khan on 21 July, 1916
In Murtaza Husain
Khan v. Mohd. Yasin Ali Khan, 43 Indian Appeals 269=AIR 1916
P.C. 89 as regards immovable properties the same view. was
reiterated.
Baijnath Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Babu Tej Bali Singh on 30 May, 1916
In Jagdamba Prasad's case the Board held that the income
received is the absolute property of the owner of the im-
partible estate and it does not attach to the estate as does
the income of ordinary ancestral estate attaches to the
estate. While immovable property can be impressed with the
impartible estate "movable property cannot". It
657
was further held that the income received is the absolute
property of the owner of the estate it derives and in no way
from the property he might have by his own saving. It is
wrong assumption to make that the income of the property of
that nature is so effected'by the sources from which it came
that still retains itself original character.