Skip to content
Try for free
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.
See full guide →

In Re: Pokurmull Augurwallah

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Sep 08, 1896
~1 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/868868

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
AI Brief & Ask Semantic Search Verdict Lens Devil's Bench DocMind
Start free trial See sample brief

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Court Fees Act (VII of 1870), Section 19D - Exemption from Probate duty--Joint Family--Hindu Law--Conveyance to four members of a joint family governed by the Mitakshara Law as tenants in common--Survivorship. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

In Re: Pokurmull Augurwallah

Legal References

Reported In
(1896)ILR23Cal980

Excerpt

court fees act (vii of 1870), section 19d - exemption from probate duty--joint family--hindu law--conveyance to four members of a joint family governed by the mitakshara law as tenants in common--survivorship. - ameer ali, j.1. upon the facts as stated it seems to us that the view taken by mr. belchambers, the taxing officer, is correct. the property was purchased by four brothers, members of a joint hindu family governed by the mitakshara law, with moneys belonging to the joint estate. the property, therefore though conveyed to them as tenants in common, vested in them as trustees for the benefit of all the co-parceners and consequently is not liable to duty.

Full Judgment

Ameer Ali, J.

1. Upon the facts as stated it seems to us that the view taken by Mr. Belchambers, the taxing officer, is correct. The property was purchased by four brothers, members of a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara law, with moneys belonging to the joint estate. The property, therefore though conveyed to them as tenants in common, vested in them as trustees for the benefit of all the co-parceners and consequently is not liable to duty.

Continue Your Research

Same Parties In Re: Pokurmull Augurwallah vs Same Subject Civil Same Judge Ameer Ali and ;Sale, JJ.
Civil

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial
1M+ judgments indexed

Brief any judgment in 18 sections.

Search Supreme Court, High Courts, and tribunals - then open an AI Brief on any result. Core search is free; full AI desk free for 7 days.

Start 7-day free trial - no card Talk to Sales