Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.24 seconds)
Tej Bali Singh vs Baijnath Prasad Singh And Ors. on 30 May, 1916 cites

Kachi Yuva Rangappa Kalakka Thola ... vs Kachi Kalyana Rangappa Kalakka Thola ... on 2 May, 1901

This principle was adopted in subsequent cases and was approved of by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of Kaohi Kaliyana Rangappa Thola Udayar v. Kachi Yuva Rangappa Thola Udayar (1909) I.L.R. 28 Mad. 508. In the present case the plaintiff is the nearest co-pareengr of the senior line, while defendant 1 is the co-parcener nearest in blood. The plaintiff therefore has the preference over defendants 1 and 2, and I hold accordingly.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 21 - Full Document

Thakurani Tara Kumari And Maharajah Sir ... vs Chaturbhuj Narayan Singh on 13 July, 1915

In Tara Kumari v. Chaturbhuj Narayan Singh (1915) I.L.R. 42 Calc. 1179 their Lordships held that there had been separation, but their Lordships do not appear to have held that the estate remained impartible after separation. In this case their Lordships decided the question of separation as a question of fact not of law. I will, however, assume that there can be such a separation. The question I conceive is one of fact. "A fact is said to be proved when after considering the matters before it the court believes it to exist, or considers it so probable that a prudent man ought under the circumstances of the particular case to act upon the supposition that it exists." (Section 3, Indian Evidence Act). The question is did Adil Shah and his brothers separate or did the family subsequently separate? In my opinion there could have been no, separation unless there was an intention to separate. Such intention could be proved by direct evidence" or might be inferred from facts. There is no direct evidence. In a large impartible raj specific property is generally given to the junior members for their maintenance. In an impartible ray it would be practically impossible to manage otherwise. Sometimes this property is transferred by written instruments expressly for maintenance with the express condition that it should not be alienated.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

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

In Doorga Persad Singh v. Doorga Konwari (1878) I.L.R. 4 Calc. 190, their Lordships say (at page 201 of the Report): "The impartiality of property does not destroy its nature as joint family property or render its the separate estate of the last holder so as to destroy the right of another member of the joint family to succeed to it upon his death in preference to those who would be his heirs if the property was separate.
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Bachoo Harkisondas vs Mankorebai on 14 February, 1907

And the grants to the brothers of Adil Shah were in substance, though perhaps not in form, made by Adil Shah: see Bachoo Harkisondas v. Mankorebai (1904) I.L.R. 29 Bom. 51 (57). There is another fact relied on, namely, that Rani Bed Saran succeeded to her husband in 1871. It was (in the absence of custom) somewhat inconsistent with Raja Kesho Saran being joint with Babu Bindeswari Prasad, Babu Jagannath, Babu Baijnath and Babu Bishnath that the Rani should have succeeded. The Rani in a petition against the estate being taken over by the Court of Wards claimed to be the heir and alleged that her husband had given her authority to adopt a son. If the Raja had really made an oral will (which was not improbable) giving the Rani direction to take over the estate and adopt a son, it would explain why she was allowed to remain in possession, or her possession could be explained on the basis of custom, and there is evidence of such a custom. It is pleaded in the present case that the Rani succeeded on the basis of custom.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 35 - Full Document
1