Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (2.33 seconds)Section 6 in The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Musammat Surajmani vs Rabi Nath Ojha on 5 December, 1907
670 where in the case of a bequest to a widow and a son with the words for your maintenance" coupled with a power to alienate by sale or gift the property bequeathed it was held that the words "for your maintenance" did not reduce the interest of either legatee to one for life only [Biprodas Goswami v. Sadhan Chandra ], in which relying upon the cases of Surajmani v. Rabi Nath Ojha [1908] 30 All.
Bhupendra Krishna Ghose vs Amarendra Nath Dey on 28 November, 1913
In the case of Bhupendra Krishna Ghose v, Amarendra Nath Dey A.I.R. 1915 P.C. 101 in a will of 1898, the testator appointed his wife as his sole executrix and after giving her authority to adopt a son provided:
Krishnamurthi Ayyar vs Krishnamurthi Ayyar on 28 March, 1927
Prom the decision in the case of Krishnamurthi Ayyar v. Krishnamurthi Ayyar (6), it is also clear that in respect of other schools of Hindu law also when the disposition ,is by will and the adoption is subsequently made by a widow who has been given power to adopt no right of a son who is subsequently adopted can affect that portion which is already carried away under the will. The result must be that under the Mitakshara law also the adoption of plaintiff 1, in the present case would not divest Hara Kumari of the estate which she had obtained. The question still remains whether, notwithstanding this position, plaintiff 1's interest during the lifetime of Hara Kumari was: "the chance of an heir apparent succeeding to an estate, the chance of a relation obtaining a legacy on this death or kinsman or any other possibilities of a like nature," within the meaning of Section 6, Clause (b), T. P. Act.
Sham Sundar Lal And Ors. vs Achhan Kunwar And Anr. on 27 July, 1898
Reversioners under the Hindu law are expectant heirs with a spes successionis: Sham Sundar v. Achhan [1899] 21 All.
Ma Yait vs The Official Assignee on 28 October, 1929
In the 'case of Ma Yait v. The Official Assignee their Lordships of the Judicial Committee held that a person entitled under a deed of settlement made in his lifetime to a vested interest in the income of the trust fund and to an interest in the corpus contingent upon his surviving at the period of distribution can validly assign his interest upon the settlement, and his interest, whether vested or contingent, is something quite different from a mere possibility of the nature of the chance of an heir apparent succeeding, and something quite different from a mere right to sue, which are untransferable by the Transfer of Property Act, Section 6 (a) and (e). In the present case, it is perhaps not possible to read the will as creating in favour of the adopted son a charge on the income of the properties which remained vested in the widow. But even then the will created a fixed right of 'future ownership in the properties in his favour.
Annada Mohan Roy vs Gour Mohan Mullick on 4 June, 1923
27. As regards his' view that the rights of plaintiff 1 was of the nature contemplated by Section 6 (a), T. P. Act, we have already held otherwise. If a reversioner proposes to relinquish his interest in {favour of the widow the widow's inter-lest is not thereby enlarged since the reversioner had nothing to relinquish. And a contract by a Hindu to sell immovable property to which he is the nearest reversionary heir expectant upon the death of the widow in possession and to transfer it upon possession accruing to him is void. The Transfer of Property Act, 1882, Section 6 (a) which forbids the transfer of expectancies would be futile if a contract of the above character were enforceable: Annoda Mohan Roy v. Gour Mohan Mullick A.I.R. 1923 P.C. 189. But the interest of plaintiff 1 not having been an interest contemplated by Section 6, Clause (a) of the Act, the deed, both as a relinquishment and as creating an estoppel would, in our opinion, be operative.
J. Williams vs Williams And Conran on 16 February, 1878
On the question whether the document was valid regarded as a deed of family settlement, we have been referred to such cases as Williams v. Williams [1867] 2 Ch. A. 204 Hellan Dasi v. Durga Das [1906] 4 C.L.J. 323 Satya Kinkar v. Satya Kripal [1909] 3 I. C. 247 Upendra Nath v. Bindeswari [1915] 32 I. C. 468 for the proposition that a family arrangement might be upheld although there were no rights actually in dispute at the time when it was made that it is a mistake to suppose that the principle is applicable only of arrangements for the settlement of doubtful or disputed rights but it also extends to arrangements made among members of a family for the preservation of its peace and that where no fraud, mistake inequality of position, undue influence or coercion or ground of a similar nature has been established, Courts would not be bound to scan with much nicety the quantum of consideration,
Lala Kanhai Lal vs Lala Brij Lal And Musammat Kausilla on 15 March, 1918
28. Reference has also been made to such cases as Mata Prasad v. Nageswar Saha in which it has been held that where a Hindu widow in possession of her husband's estate has entered into a compromise of a claim by a reversioner and the compromise is in the circumstances of a family settlement which is prudent and reasonable, it is binding upon the estate; Kanhai Lal v. Brij Lal A.I.R. 1918 P.C. 70 in which an appellant who had entered into 'and taken the benefit of a compromise into which he had entered at a time when he had no right of any kind to any share in the property but had the mere expectancy of a reversioner was held precluded from claiming as reversioner subsequently and Ramgowda Annagowda v. Bhau Saheb A.I.R. 1927 P.C. 227 in which alienations made by a Hindu widow under a transaction which was regarded as a family arrangement was held binding on the reversioner who had attested the deeds by which the alienations had been made and had himself acquired a part of the estate by one of such alienations, all such alienations being regarded as parts of one and the same transaction.