Court : Karnataka
Decided on : Mar-01-2013
..... by division bench of high court of madras in the matter of manjaya mtjdali, their lordships have compared the joint. family concept with law of partnership and held that a member of a joint family cannot, any more than a partner, introduce a stranger into the community and the division bench ..... sheshagiri and vasudeva murthy who was his uncle and the father-in-law of the defendant/appellant purchased the property jointly. they were partners in a partnership firm which was dissolved on 16.8.1971. on 3.3.1981, portion of the land purchased jointly by sheshagiri and vasudeva murthy was sold ..... that particular document and distributed the properties amongst themselves by settlement; said document does not become compulsorily registerable document as required under section 17 of the indian registration act, 1908. he would draw attention of the court to evidence of d.w.10 (sri nagabhushana rao naidu, pages 126 to 129 of paper ..... past transactions but rights conferred or the properties distributed amongst the parties under the said document and as such section 17(1)(b) of the indian registration act, 1908, is attracted and it is hit by the said section and in support of this submission, he relies upon the judgment of coordinate ..... .j.v. naidu smt. rani puttamma had become the absolute owner of the kanagundi house by virtue of section 14(1) of hindu succession act, 1956 (act 30 of 1956) which came into effect from 17.06.1956 and sub-section (2) of section 14 had no application and it was not .....Tag this Judgment!