Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (3.23 seconds)
Baijnath Prasad Singh And Ors. vs Babu Tej Bali Singh 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 Kachi Kaliyana Rangappa v. Kachi Yuva Rangappa 28 M. 508 : 2 A.L.J. 845 : 2 C.L.J. 231 : 10 C.W.N. 95 : 7 Bom. L.R. 907 : 15 M.L.J. 312 : 1 M.L.T. 12 : 32 I.A. 261 : 8 Sar. P.C.J. 855. In the present case the plaintiff is the nearest co-parcener of the senior line, while defendant No. 1 is the coparcener nearest in blood. The plaintiff, therefore, has the preference over defendants Nos. 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

I think that the case of Tara Kumari v. Chaturbhuj Narayan Singh 30 Ind. Cas. 833 : 42 C. 1179 : 19 C.W.N. 1119 : 18 M.L.T. 228 : 29 M.L.J. 371 : 2 L.W. 843 : (1915) M.W.N. 717 : 13 A.L.J. 1034 : 17 Bom. L.K. 1012 : 22 C.L.J. 498 : 42 I.A. 192 (P.C) was decided on its particular facts and lays down no general principle. In a large estate and a numerous family it is the rule rather than the exception that the junior members of the family are given villages for their maintenance where they go and live for convenience and management. I find that the family was not separate either before, or after Adil Shah got the estate.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 20 - 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 v. Mankorebai 29 B. 51 at p. 57 : 6 Bom. L.R. 268]. 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 Bindeshwari Prasad, Babu Jagannath, Babu Baijnath and Babu Bishn Nath 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

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

In Doorga Persad Singh v. Doorga Kunwari 4 C. 190 : 3 C.L.J. 31 : 5 I.A. 149 : 3 Suth. P.C.J. 540 : 3 Sar. P.C.J. 827 : 2 Ind. Jur. 650 : 2 Shome L.R. 21 : 2 Ind. Dec. Dec. (N.S.) 121 their Lordships say at page 201 of the Report: The impartibility of the property does not destroy its nature as joint family property or render it 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

Venkatarayadu And Ors. vs Venkataramayya And Anr. on 24 November, 1891

In the second case, the one reported as Venkatarayadu v. Venkataramayya (12), it was held on the evidence and the circumstances of the case that the grant by the Government to Venkata Narasiah was not a grant to the undivided family of which he was a member but to him personally. The third case, that of Venkata Bow, was also decided on the facts proved in it and the construction of a sanad granted under Regulation XXV. It in no way helps the appellants.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1