Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)Jatindra Nath Roy Chowdhury And On His ... vs Heramba Chandra Roy Chowdhury And Ors. on 11 January, 1945
24. Jatindra Mohan Roy v. Ramesh Chandra Roy (supra) is a case where defendant, a member of a joint family, during the absence of the plaintiff,
another member of the family, errected a building on a portion of the Joint land in such a way that neither party could have exclusive use of it without injury to the other. Under the aforesaid circumstances this Court held that both the parties should use it jointly, though the strict right of the plaintiff would have been to have the building demolished and to have the land restored to its original position. The aforesaid decision cannot be applied to a case where with the consent of the plaintiff, the defendant No. 1 has constructed the building, restricting its construction with his half-share leaving the remaining half to the plaintiff.
Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai And Others vs Desai Mallappa And Others on 9 February, 1961
In the case of Mallesappa B. Desai (supra) relied upon by Mr. Roychowdhury, the Apex Court was considering the doctrine of blending. The principle of blending is that where a member of a joint Hindu family blends his self-acquired property with property of the joint family, either by bringing his self acquired property into a Joint family account, or bringing Joint family property into his separate account, the effect is that all the property so belanded becomes a joint family property. The aforesaid doctrine, the Apex Court pointed out, inevitably postulates that the owner of the separate property must be a coparcener who has an interest in the coparcenery property and such coparcener desired to blend his separate property with the coparcenery property. The conduct on which a plea of blending is based must clearly and unequivocally show the intention of the owner of the separate property to convert his property into an item of joint family property. A mere intention to benefit the members of the family by allowing them the use of the income coming from the said property may not necessarily be enough to Justify an inference of blending.
Smt. Pushpa Devi vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income-Tax on 30 April, 1993
In the case of Sm. Pushpa Devi (supra), all that has been laid down by the Supreme Court is that a female member of a joint family cannot blend her separate property with the joint family property and hence Income from that property was not assessable in the hands of Hindu undivided family. The said decision therefore cannot have any application to the fact of the present case.
Solaiman Moosaji Asmal And Ors. vs Jatindra Nath Mondal And Ors. on 13 May, 1929
25. The decision in the case of Solaiman Musaji Asmal (supra) rather goes against the plaintiff. In that case it was held that where the parties to a partition suit long ago made their bargain with their eyes open and consequently one person has expended money upon a joint property, at the time of partition, it is reasonable to give such a party such allotment as may enable him to reap the advantage of what he has Invested upon inprovements.
1