Court : Allahabad
Decided on : May-20-1977
Reported in : AIR1977All437
..... to smt. shiv rani, respondent no. 1.3. for the appellant it was urged that neither the provisions of section 44, transfer of property act, nor those of section 4 of the partition act, 1893 bar the relief for partition. section 44 of the transfer of property act reads as under:--'44. where one of two or more co-owners of immovable property legally competent in that behalf transfers his ..... smt. shiv rani cannot be said to be a sale of a share by a member of an undivided family; henceneither section 44 of the transfer of property act, nor section 4(1) of the partition act shall hinder the plaintiff to seek partition of the said house by metes and bounds. the plaintiff having been found to have half share in the property could, therefore ..... the appellate court below has erred in not granting that relief to him by saying that section 4 of the partition act bars such a relief.5. in the result, the appeal is allowed. the decree passed by the court below is set aside. the suit is decreed for partition of the share of ram bilas tewari in the house in question. it is, however ..... the house in suit. let a preliminary decree for partition be drawn accordingly. the relief for joint possession is not pressed. learned counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the plaintiff's case is that instead of the relief for joint possession, he may be allowed partition of his share in the house. in the circumstances, the parties shall bear their own costs. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Oct-11-1977
Reported in : 1977WLN681
..... next and the last submission that if that were the view then any one of the parties, by not supplying the requisite stamp, proportionate to his share, may withhold the drawing up of the final decree for partition indefinitely, cannot also be accepted under section 29 of the stamp act all co-sharers are required to contribute stamp duty ratably according to their shares. even ..... ' joint family, and therefore is not an instrument of partition, within the meaning of section 2( 15), the final order is such an instrument for effecting partition and therefore the final decree in partition suit is required to be engrossed on non-judicial stamp paper of required value under article 45 of the stamp act. jnanadasundari shaha v. madhab chandra mala (1) air 1932 calcutta 282: dilbagh ..... taken in execution of such decree are invalid.5. the high courts, in all these cases, have unanimously taken the view that a final decree for partition should be engrossed on a non-judicial stamp under article 45 of the stamp act, because it is an instrument of partition within the meaning of section 2(15) of the act. in some of these cases, the high courts ..... allahabad 137(11). the reason for this is that the duly once paid on the final decree for partition would enquire to the benefit of all the parties at the subsequent stages of the suit.8. the decision in m.l. manjappa and ors. v. kalyani pujarthy and ors. (12) a.i.r. 1971 mysore 350/-, instead of supporting the appellant's contention .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-17-1977
Reported in : (1977)3SCC99; 3SCR261
..... first appellate court were right in holding that the facts of the case do not fall within section 14(2) of the hindu succession act, 1956.it will be seen from these observations that even though the property was acquired by subhrai bai under the instrument of partition, which gave only a limited interest to her in the property this court held that the ..... of record or recognition of the true legal position and the restriction on her interest being a 'disability imposed by law' would be wiped out and her limited interest would be enlarged under sub-section (1). but where property is acquired by a hindu female under an instrument for the first time without any pre-existing right solely by virtue of the instrument, she ..... him. so that she becomes a co-owner of the husband, though her right is not co-equal to that of the husband, but a subordinate one. owing to her disability founded on her status of perpetual or life long tutelage or dependence..this right of the wife to maintenance from her husband is not lost even if the husband renounce ..... . natesan counsel for the respondents on a decision of this court in smt. naraini devi v. smt. ramo devi : 3scr55 to which one of us (fazal ali, j.,) was a party. this case is no doubt directly in point and this court by holding that where under an award an interest is created in favour of a widow that she should be .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Aug-22-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Mad21; (1978)1MLJ391
..... first defendant had inherited a widow's estate in the properties on the death of their husband. but it should be remembered that the explanation to section 14(1) specifically refers to acquisition of properties under a partition. one can get a share under a partition only if he or she had some pre-existing right in the same. it is true that in a ..... .13. but i think it is unnecessary to pursue this point because it cannot be disputed that even prior to the application of the 1937 act, under the textual law, there can be a final and absolute partition so as to put an end to the right of survivorhsip by mutual consent of the widows. that is what has happened in this case ..... the plaintiff that by virtue of section 14(1) of the hindu succession act, she had become the absolute owner of the suit properties, in this connection, learned counsel referred to sampathkumari v. lakshmiammal, : air1963mad50 . there the question was whether section 14(2) applied because of the recitals contained in the partition deed 'between the widows. at page 60, the division ..... by kandaswami gounder.14. mr. t. r. ramachandran, learned counsel for the appellants, contended that the plaintiff in this case cannot be said to have acquired the suit property under the partition of 1943, inasmuch as she along with the first defendant had inherited a widow's estate on the death of kandaswami gounder and that therefore it cannot be claimed by .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Chennai
Decided on : Feb-10-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Mad230; (1978)1MLJ398
..... panchayatdars. the division is fair and equitable and, therefore, the plaintiff is not entitled to have it set aside. even otherwise, the said partition deed has been acted upon by all the parties including the plaintiff. some of the properties having been alienated to strangers by the sharers, it is not possible to go back on these transactions ..... in items 6 to 12 in the plaint c schedule and the houses described as items 3 and 6 in the plaint b schedule to defendants 5 to 10 and 13 under various sale deeds. the first defendant had sold to the 11th defendant the oil mill and the machinery and the building described as item 1 ..... further expenses. two attestors to ex. b-12 sale deed and the 6th defendant have been examined respectively as d. ws. 3, 4 and 5 with reference to the alienation under ex. b-12. on the basis of their evidence the lower court found that the sale was not for an adequate price as alleged by the ..... the ex. b-15 was not necessarily to be considered in this suit as the only question to be considered is whether the sale under ex. b-12 in favour of defendants 5 and 6 is valid and binding on the plaintiff. the consideration mentioned in ex. b-12, has gone for the discharge of the ..... lands of an extent of 1.62 acres. these were sold by defendants 1 and 2 and the 4th defendant acting for herself and as guardian of the plaintiff to defendants 5 and 6 for a sum of rs. 2000, under ex. b. 12 dated 7-2-1858. though this alienation has been questioned by the plaintiff, defendants .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : May-27-1977
Reported in : 13(1977)DLT153
..... the high court has held that the jurisdictional values has to be fixed on the basis of the whole property whichis sought to be partitioned. this is on account of the rules framed under section 9 of the suits valuation act, 1887, by the lahore high courtin 1943. there are some other judgments which have taken the sameview. as at present advised, it is ..... fact, there is another some recent judgment deliveredby b. c. misra j. reported as jamila khatoon etc. v. saidul nisa etc.1977 rlr 54 in which it has been held that if thesuit is brought for partition and possession then section 7(v) of thecourt fees act, 1870 applies and the value for purposes of jurisdictionhas to be fixed in accordance with the plaintiff's ..... of the commercialsub judge to the court of the district judge. in this connection, theprovisions of section 24 of the code of civil procedure as amended bythe act of 1976 are useful. section 24(5) as it now stands says :- 'asuit or proceeding may be transferred under this section froma court which has no jurisdiction to try it.'this is a new power which can be ..... to the district judge who has jurisdiction.i also in turn direct that the district judge may send it to any other ad-ditional district judge for further trial. the parties to appear before thedistrict judge on 5/07/1977. no order re: costs.--- *** --- .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Mumbai
Decided on : Jun-28-1977
Reported in : AIR1978Bom64; (1978)80BOMLR27
..... not file a suit for partition of the said lands.40. moreover, as bapu anna 'died, on oct. 31, 1956, after the coming into force of the hindu succession act on 17th june, 1956, mr. pratap rightly contended that the suit lands continued to be impartible having regard to the provisions in section 5 of that act, which lays down :--'this act shall not apply to ..... was not applicable even now, as the digest of hindu law continued to apply to the hindus in the areas which were formerly governed by the karvir state.22. thus, under section 16 of the said digest ^^ fganq dk;|kps fuca/k **feydr vfohkkt; vlsy vkf.kokjlk ,desdkcjkscj vusd blekadms vkyk vlsy rs'gk ;kisdh lokzr omhy blekykpr;k okjlkoj gdd rizkir ..... the principles laid down in the above rulings are made applicable to the facts of the present case especially when there is no direct ruling for guidance of the court under act no. xxxv of 1962.'11. the decision of the learned civil judge is challenged, in the above first appeal, by mr. pratap, the learned counsel appearing for the appellants-defendants ..... , limaye could point out in the 'digest of hindu law', which is applicable to the parties, which enabled them to convert what were impartible lands into partible lands merely because the grants were abolished under the maharashtra revenue patels (abolition of office) act, 1962.39. the abolition act did not extend to the hindus of the former karvir state, the general rules of hindu .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Jan-19-1977
Reported in : AIR1977SC993; 107ITR784(SC); (1977)1SCC867; 2SCR645
..... of madras 3 stc 367 the question was as to the vires of rules 4 and 16 framed under the madras general sales tax act. section 5 (vi) of that act had left it to the rule-making authority to determine at which single point in the series of sales by successive dealers the tax should be levied, and pursuant thereto. ..... that question by the rule-making authorities was ultra vires. the madras high court rejected this contention, and held on a review of the authorities that the delegation of authority under section 5(vi) was within permissible constitutional limits. 17. powell's ease as well as the case of syed mohamed were referred to with approval by this court in the case of ..... the taxation authorities to the appellant as well as from the return filed on their behalf, it would appear that the taxation authorities were not averse in the event of partition among the members of the hindu undivided family, to assess the appellant in his individual capacity in respect of the agricultural income arising from those tea estates which had fallen ..... . each writ petition related to one of these years. we may set out the facts relating to the assessment year 1946-47 as it is the common case of the parties that the decision about the writ petition relating to that year would govern the other writ petitions also. 3. the appellant sashi prasad barooah was the karta of a hindu .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : May-03-1977
Reported in : AIR1977SC2069; 108ITR439(SC); (1977)3SCC385a
..... interest devolving on a hindu widow under the provisions of this section shall be the limited interest known as a hindu woman's estate, provided however that she shall have the same right of claiming partition as a male-owner. the words 'the same interest as he himself had' in sub-section (2) of section 3 of the act of 1937 clearly indicate that the statute ..... joint family. we find ourselves in complete agreement with the observations made by the patna high court to which one of us (untwalia, j., as he then was) was a party. the view taken by the patna high court in the aforesaid case was later on approved by a full bench of the patna high court in mst. khatrani kuer ..... court, relying mainly on the decisions of the privy council in attorney-general of ceylon v. arunachalam chettiar and gartside v. inland revenue commrs. came to the conclusion that the interest of smt. alladi was not a coparcenary interest which could have passed under section 7(1) of the act and as the said interest was incapable of valuation it was not exigible to estate ..... not one imposed for the benefit of reversioners but is an incident of the estate as known to hindu law.6. similarly in a later case in potti lakshmi perumallu v. potti krishnavenamma : 1scr26 this court reiterated that a hindu widow was the surviving half of her husband and so long as she was alive the husband continued to live .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Orissa
Decided on : Mar-15-1977
Reported in : AIR1977Ori170; 44(1977)CLT273
..... jointly by all the three branches of the family and was also partitioned between them, in which each branch was allotted a share and possessed the same. he further found that the suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and was also barred under section 39 of the orissa estates abolition act. on these findings, he dismissed the suit, but at the same ..... could not be tried in the earlier proceeding this case does not relate to effect of section 6 of the hindu succession act, if a party dies after passing of the act.reliance is placed on the decisions in devidas v. shrishailappa, air 1961 sc 1277 and dolai maliko v. krushna chandra patnaik, air 1967 sc 49. it is argued by the appellants that when plaintiffs ..... knew who all the legal representatives of the deceased were, but omitted to implead some, and their assertion is that all legal representatives have been impleaded, the doctrine of substantial representation cannot be invoked and the conduct of the defendants does not entitle them to fall back upon such doctrine. in allam gangadhara rao ..... saheb of narasinghpur for settlement of the lands described in schedule b of the plaint and the raja saheb settled the lands in fovour of the three brothers on 13-5-1935. these lands, like all other lands acquired by the brothers either individually or collectively, were being always treated and enjoyed as part of the joint family property and were .....Tag this Judgment!