Advanced Search Results

Savitribai Widow of Dhakji Balcrustna Vs. Luximibai Widow of Ganoba An ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : (1878)ILR2Bom573

decree for sale and partition was made by Sir Erskine Perry on the 25th September 1852. The family property, the subject of that suit, consisting of a house in the Kalbadevi Road and a chawl, with an

Parappa Ningappa Khaded and anr. Vs. Mallappa Kallappa and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Law; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 11

Reported in : AIR1956Bom332; (1956)58BOMLR404; ILR1956Bom546

has been constituted to decide the vexed question of the interest that an alienee takes in joint family property unauthorisedly alienated by the father, and the few facts which are necessary to state in order to decide

Controller of Estate Duty, Tamil Nadu-ii, Madras Vs. R.M. Venkatachala ...

Court : Chennai

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 5, 7, 33(1), 34(1), 34(2), 39 and 39(3); Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Sections 6 and 30

Reported in : [1984]147ITR746(Mad)

had no separate properties of his own. An undivided half share in the family properties was the only property he could call his own when he breathed his last. 3. On the deceased's death, his son filed

Lalitha Pershad (Died) Per Lrs Vs. Shyamsunderlal (Died) Per Lrs

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Subject : Family

Acts : Record of Rights Act; Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 41 and 76; Andhra Pradesh Land Reforms (Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings) Act, 1973 - Sections 8(1) and 9; Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956; Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 - Sections 32G; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 100 and 151 - Order 41, Rule 27; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) - Sections 145 and 149; Hindu Law

Reported in : 2009(5)ALT67

exclusive possession of suit schedule lands. Gopilal and Ganpathlal are sons of Ramdayal and suit lands are joint family properties and were enjoyed by them jointly. Both of them are co-owners having joint possession and enjoyment. They … correction of revenue entries, which was dismissed holding that the plaintiffs' branch and defendants' branch are entitled to property. Case and counter case is stated infra by referring to parties as they are arrayed in the suit.From

Baijnath Prasad Singh Vs. Tej Bali Singh

Court : Mumbai

Subject : PropertyFamily

Reported in : (1921)23BOMLR654

plaintiff of the uncles defendants jointly. The uncles on the death of the widow managed to seize the' property, which accounts for their being defendants in the suit.5. The family in question was an ancient family, holding

Suman Balkrishna Zodage Vs. Alaka Suresh Zodge and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Evidence Act - Sections 58, 101 and 106; Shop and Establishment Act; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) - Order 41, Rule 27

Reported in : 2008(4)ALLMR483; 2008(5)BomCR699

one flour mill.6. According to the Plaintiff (the Respondent No. 1 to 3 herein this appeal) the suit property was purchased by Mahadev from the Stridhan of his wife Shevantabai. But the property was enjoyed by Mahadev … one daughter Manisha. Admittedly chandrakant's wife has remarried. Mahadeo's wife Shevantabai died on 26.3.1983.4. The genealogy of the family of the Plaintiffs and Defendants has given in the plaint is as underMahadeo Maruti Zodge (expired on 1961)-----------------------------------------------!

Smt. Phulmati Devi Vs. Mostt. Jiwasia Devi and ors.

Court : Jharkhand

Subject : PropertyFamily

Acts : Explosive Substance Act; Hindu Law

Reported in : 2008(56)BLJR324; [2007(4)JCR176(Jhr)]

subsequently acquired out of the joint fund of the family and there has been no partition of any property between the heirs of Budhu Dusadh. While this situation had continued, the joint family had decided to start

Smt. Kanchan Vs. Babu Bhai and ors.

Court : Rajasthan

Subject : FamilyProperty

Acts : Hindu Law; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 11 and 60

Reported in : AIR1967Raj184

Vaneyehand resided separately from his father. He has also stated that the houses in dispute were joint family property and they were got constructed by Veerchand and his sons. I find no reason to disturb the finding

Surendra Nath Malhotra (Huf) Vs. Gift-tax Officer

Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Kolkata

Subject : Direct Taxation

Reported in : (1985)13ITD499(Kol.)

the last two daughters were minors. On 9-9-1971 there had taken place a partial partition as regards the property belonging to the bigger-HUF of Shri H.L. Malhotra. In that partition the smaller-HUF of Shri S.N. Malhotra, namely, … Rs. 3 lakhs. The assessee, however, claimed that the gifts in question were really in the nature of family arrangement and could not, therefore, be regarded as gifts under Section 2(xii) of the Act. In the alternative

Kantilal Trikamlal Vs. Controller of Estate Duty, Gujarat

Court : Gujarat

Subject : Direct Taxation

Acts : Estate Duty Act, 1953 - Sections 2(15), 27 and 27(1)

Reported in : [1969]74ITR353(Guj)

terms : '2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, -....... (15) 'property' includes any interest in property, movable or immovable, the proceeds of sale thereof and any money or investment for the time being representing … son, Kantilal, and his two grandsons by a pre-deceased son, namely, Lalbhai and Parshottam, constituted a Hindu undivided family. There was a partition between the deceased and Kantilal, on the one hand, and Lalbhai and Parshottam, on