Advanced Search Results

Mandala Madhava Rao Vs. Mandala Yadagiri and Others

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Family

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 88; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 107 - Order XLI, Rules 26 and 27

Reported in : 2001(3)ALD577; 2001(3)ALT295

Supreme Court reiterated the above principles.20. Nextly, it is necessary to refer to Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereafter called 'the Succession Act'), which reads as under :Where two clauses or gifts in a Will are

T.N. Krishna Pillai S/O Nallaperumal, Vs. K. Nallaperumal S/O T.N. Kri ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 84, 87, 88, 97, 113, 114 and 138

Reported in : (2002)3MLJ667

ER 308 : 54 TLR 903. 5. This principle is also contained in Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which, together with its illustrations, provides as under: 'The last of two inconsistent clauses prevails:- Where two clauses

Susila Ammal Vs. Indiraniammal

Court : Chennai

Subject : Family

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 -- Sections 87, 88, 97, 113, 114 and 118; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 -- Sections 15

Reported in : 2000(4)CTC78

failure of any particular line of the legatees. Learned counsel also relied oh the provisions of Sections 87, 88 and 113 of the Indian Succession Act and also the decision of the Supreme Court in N.Krishnaammal v. … will were incongrous and offended the rule against perpetuity as set out in Section- 114 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.6. Per contra, Mrs.Prabha Sridevan submitted that the concept of rule against perpetuity could not be brought in or

Controller of Estate Duty, Bombay City-iii Vs. Bai Suntokbai Damodar G ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 57, 82, 88 and 121

Reported in : (1980)15CTR(Bom)116; [1981]132ITR223(Bom); [1980]3TAXMAN42(Bom)

Succession Act, 1925 - repugnancy or inconsistency at time of reconciling different parts of instrument - as per Section 88 if two clauses or parts of an instruments are repugnant to each other earlier will prevail and later … 19, 1913. This will was executed in Bombay. Accordingly, under clause (a) of s. 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the provisions of Pt. VI of the said Act set out in Sch. III thereto, subject to the

Maj. Gen Rajinder Singh Chowdhary Vs. S. Manjit Singh Chowdhary and or ...

Court : Delhi

Subject : Property

Reported in : 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1157; AIR2001Delhi15; 88(2000)DLT173; 2000(55)DRJ518

Matched in: Citation 2000VIIAD(Delhi)1157; AIR2001Delhi15; 88(2000)DLT173; 2000(55)DRJ518

Darjus Jehangir Vs. Lyla Minoo Ghasvalla and Others

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Successions Act, 1925 - Sections 74, 75, 82, 83, 88, 119, 120, 131 and 132; Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 - Sections 29

Reported in : AIR2000Bom372; 2000(2)ALLMR32; 2000(3)BomCR447; (2000)2BOMLR108

Mr. Bookwala had relied upon sections 74, 75, 82, 88, 119, 120, 131 and 132 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Mr. Bookwala has relied on the decisions in the cases of (i) Re. Rowland & another 1963 CD … or a wider sense to the words used depending on how the testator meant to use the words. Section 88 provides that where two Clauses or gifts in a will are irreconcilable, the last shall prevail. Sections 119

Balwant Kaur and anr. Vs. Chanan Singh and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Family

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 88; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 - Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 8 and 14(1); Constitution of India - Article 136

Reported in : 2000(3)CTC444; JT2000(5)SC102; (2000)3MLJ59(SC); (2000)126PLR469; 2000(3)SCALE332; (2000)6SCC310; 2000(2)LC1290(SC); AIR2000SC1908; [2000] 3 SCR 61

No. 1 but only conferred a life interest in the property to her. Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides as follows: 88. The last of two inconsistent clauses prevails.- Where two clauses of gifts in a

Controller of Estate Duty, Madras Vs. R. Raghava Iyengar

Court : Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 9; Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 88

Reported in : [1984]150ITR86(Mad)

Direct Taxation - right in property - Section 9 of Estate Duty Act, 1953 and Section 88 of Succession Act, 1925 - whether deceased acquired any right or interest in B, C and D Schedule properties under Will of

Scaria Korah of Thayil Vs. Koran Mathu of Thayil and ors.

Court : Kerala

Subject : Family

Acts : Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 88

Reported in : AIR1962Ker323

the defendant willbe adjudicated in the final decree in the suits. Family - possession - Section 88 of Succession Act, 1925 - whether there was clerical error while making will - intention of testator gathered from words used by

Kaivelikkal Ambunhi (Dead) by Lrs. and Others Vs. H. Ganesh Bhandary

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Family

Acts : Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Sections 88

Reported in : AIR1995SC2491; 1995(2)CTC389; JT1995(7)SC164; 1995(5)SCALE23; (1995)5SCC444; [1995]Supp3SCR35

Treharne 1938 (3) All E R 308.5. This principle is also contained in Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which, together with its illustrations, provides as under:-The last of two inconsistent clauses prevails - Where two clauses