Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.36 seconds)
Manvendra Singh And Others vs Rameshwar Dayal And Others on 16 October, 1990 cites

Mummareddi Nagi Reddi And Others vs Pitti Durairaja Naidu And Others on 8 May, 1951

In this respect he placed reliance on Mummareddi Nagi Reddi v. Pitti Durairaja Naidu (AIR 1952 SC 109). In that case the widow had surrendered her life estate in favour of her daughter and son-in-law. The plaintiffs, who were the grand children of the donees, assailed the transfer made by the donee in respect of the property surrendered by the widow in their favour. The document of surrender or relinquishment was assailed before the Supreme Court on the ground that the widow had no right to do in favour of immediate reversioner and a stranger although he was her own son-in-law. Adverting to the contents of the deed their Lordships of the Supreme Court observed thus (at p. 111 of AIR) There are no words of transfer used in the deed, though the widow purports to endow her son-in-law and daughter with hereditary rights of enjoyment in the property. The document is described as a release and is stamped as such. Apparently it comprises all the properties which the widow had, and in a sense the document in dispute an intention on the part of the lady to give up all connection which business affairs, prime facie these facts lend support to the story of surrender. It is not and cannot be disputed that there can be a surrender even when the next reversioner is a female heir herself, who takes a limited interest in the property, though such surrender cannot give her a larger interest that she would get as an heir under the law of inheritance. The whole difficulty in this case, however, is created by the fact that the widow purports to exercise her right of relinquish-ment of her husband's estate in favour of two persons one of whom is a next heir, but the other, though related to her as son-in-law, is a complete stranger so far as rights of inheritance are concerned, and there can be no doubt that she intended that her husband's estate should go to the son-in-law jointly with her own daughter."
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document
1