Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 39 (0.66 seconds)
Smt. Sushila Devi vs Dinesh Prasad Gupta on 20 December, 2019 cites

Jaydayal Poddar (Deceased) Through His ... vs Mst. Bibi Hazra And Ors on 19 October, 1973

(3) motive, if any, for giving the transaction a benami colour; (4) the position of the parties and the relationship, if any, between the claimant and the alleged benamidar; (5) the custody of the title deeds after the sale; and (6) the conduct of the parties concerned in dealing with the property after the sale.' (Jaydayal Poddar v. Bibi Hazra,
Supreme Court of India Cites 4 - Cited by 169 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document

K. V. Narayanaswami Iyer vs K. V. Ramakrishna Iyer And Ors on 26 March, 1964

"10. ... ... ... 19. xx xx But Mr. Nambiar learned counsel for the respondents relied upon the decision in K.V. Narayanaswami Iyer v. K.V. Ramakrishna Iyer, AIR 1965 SC 289, as indicating a contrary view, i.e., that the presumption is the same whether it is male or female member of the joint family. We do not think that there is any warrant for that inference from the decision of the Supreme Court. That decision arose out of a suit for partition and the question arose whether the properties standing in the name of the wife, son and the grandson of a male member of the family were joint family properties or the separate properties of those individuals. The Supreme Court observed at page. 292 as under - "The legal position is well settled that if in fact at the date of acquisition of a particular property the joint family had sufficient nucleus for acquiring it, the property in the name of any member of the joint family should be presumed to be acquired from out of the family funds and so to form part of the joint family property unless the contrary is shown.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 77 - K C Gupta - Full Document

Commissioner Of Income-Tax, C. P. And ... vs Sethi Laxmi Narayan Raghunathdas. on 25 February, 1948

"10. The next question is whether after the death of Nandlal a new partnership was entered into between the representatives of the two branches of the families, i.e, Nandlal's and Bachhulal's. Before we consider this question it is as well that we advert to incidental questions of law that were raised. One is whether the widow of Nandlal could under Hindu law be a karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of three widows and two minors. There is conflict of view on this question. The Nagpur High Court held that a widow could be a karta: see Commissioner of Income-tax, C. P. and Berar v. Laxmi Narayan, (1948) 16 ITR 313: (AIR 1949 Nag 128); Pandurang Vithoba v. Pandurang Ramchandra, ILR (1947) Nag 299: (AIR 1947 Nag 178): The Calcutta High Court expressed the view that where the male members are minors and their natural guardian is the mother, the mother can represent the Hindu undivided family for the purpose of assessment and recovery of taxes under the Income-tax Act: see Sushila Devi Rampuria v. Income-tax Officer 1960-38 ITR 316: (AIR 1959 Cal 697); and Sm. Champa Kumari Singhi v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal, (1961) 46 ITR 81 (Cal). The said two decisions did not recognize the widow as a karta of the family, but treated her as the guardian of the minors for the purpose of income-tax assessment. The said decisions, therefore, do not touch the question now raised. The Madras and Orissa High Courts held that coparcenership is a necessary qualification for the managership of a joint Hindu family and as a widow is not admittedly a coparcener, she has no legal qualifications to become the manager of a joint Hindu family.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Nagpur Cites 6 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sm. Sushila Devi Rampuria vs Income Tax Officer And Anr. on 11 June, 1959

"10. The next question is whether after the death of Nandlal a new partnership was entered into between the representatives of the two branches of the families, i.e, Nandlal's and Bachhulal's. Before we consider this question it is as well that we advert to incidental questions of law that were raised. One is whether the widow of Nandlal could under Hindu law be a karta of the joint Hindu family consisting of three widows and two minors. There is conflict of view on this question. The Nagpur High Court held that a widow could be a karta: see Commissioner of Income-tax, C. P. and Berar v. Laxmi Narayan, (1948) 16 ITR 313: (AIR 1949 Nag 128); Pandurang Vithoba v. Pandurang Ramchandra, ILR (1947) Nag 299: (AIR 1947 Nag 178): The Calcutta High Court expressed the view that where the male members are minors and their natural guardian is the mother, the mother can represent the Hindu undivided family for the purpose of assessment and recovery of taxes under the Income-tax Act: see Sushila Devi Rampuria v. Income-tax Officer 1960-38 ITR 316: (AIR 1959 Cal 697); and Sm. Champa Kumari Singhi v. Additional Member, Board of Revenue, West Bengal, (1961) 46 ITR 81 (Cal). The said two decisions did not recognize the widow as a karta of the family, but treated her as the guardian of the minors for the purpose of income-tax assessment. The said decisions, therefore, do not touch the question now raised. The Madras and Orissa High Courts held that coparcenership is a necessary qualification for the managership of a joint Hindu family and as a widow is not admittedly a coparcener, she has no legal qualifications to become the manager of a joint Hindu family.
Calcutta High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Ambika Devi And Ors. vs Balmakund Pandey And Ors. on 4 February, 1980

19. Even from the legal aspect the plaintiff's stand in regard to schedule C properties is untenable. His contention is that since the descendant of Shaligram Missir were members of a joint Hindu family, any acquisition even though in the name of one member will be deemed to be part of the hotchpot unless the person who claims it to be his exclusive property proves that this is so. This presumption is not applicable where there has already been previous partition between the parties. In such a situation the presumption would be otherwise namely that all joint family assets have been included for partition in the earlier suit and the burden lies on the person who claims that any left out property was also part of the joint family assets, to prove the same. This principle has been laid down in AIR 1981 Patna 111 (Ambika Devi v. Baknukund Pandey). The relevant passage from the above decision may be quoted as follows :-
Patna High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 9 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next