Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: partition act 1893 section 5 representation of parties under disability Year: 1980 Page 1 of about 17 results (0.312 seconds)

Dec 19 1980 (HC)

Sudesh Kumar Vs. Atam Parkash and ors.

Court : Delhi

Decided on : Dec-19-1980

Reported in : 20(1981)DLT9; ILR1980Delhi409

..... the course of hearing it was brought to notice that the parties to the decree had in the meantime come to certain terms. accordingly, it was observed that that development also be taken into consideration.(5) the matter came up before m. s. joshi, j. who found that the sale being under the partition act, 1893 it ought to have been subject to reserve bidding and ..... . the matter requires examination in some detail.(10) before t. p. s.chawla, j. there was a composite application under order 9 rules 7 and 13 read with section 151 of the code of civil procedure and also under sections 2 and 3 of the partition act. the learned single judge found that the application was barred by time and was devoid of merit. inasmuch as ..... can be cases where some material irregularity occurred in publishing or conducting the sale but the bona fides of the parties are not in question. there may also be cases where material irregularity is the result of deliberate fraud, misstatement or mis-representation. .the further proviso added by the punjab high court to rule 90 would not be attracted in the latter ..... type of cases but so far as the instant case goes, it is fully covered by that proviso.(17) in navalkha and sons (supra) sale was under companies (court) rules 1959. the relevant rule .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 04 1980 (HC)

Santosh Kr. Mitra Vs. Kalipada Das and ors.

Court : Kolkata

Decided on : Dec-04-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Cal278

..... for purchasing the share transferred by the plaintiff to santosh kumar mitra who was a stranger to the family, on payment of the consideration under section 4 of the partition act.5. santosh kumar mitra opposed both the cases. his contention in the court below was that the disputed property was not the joint family ..... that they never lived in the suit premises which were all through jet out to tenants and that the provisions of section 4 of the partition act were not applicable to the case.6. both parties adduced evidence. the learned subordinate judge upon a consideration of the evidence found that p. w. 1 promotha nath ..... the partition act and to. interpret its provisions in such a way as would promote and fulfil the said object. in a suit for partition the question as to who is arrayed in the category of plaintiff and who in the category of the defendants is not of importance for a party in partition suit ..... whether a plaintiff or a defendant is at the same time a plaintiff as well as a defendant (air 1949 cal 245). therefore the contention that section 4 cannot be attracted unless the transferee himself sues for partition does not seem to hold! good ..... property is their dwelling house, that she was married in that house and) her sons were also born there. on behalf of the opposite party monmotho nath das says that the disputed house was let out to provide a source of income and that thereafter they moved to gopalpur, never to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 19 1980 (HC)

Abdul Sathar Vs. A. Nawab

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-19-1980

Reported in : AIR1980Mad235; (1980)2MLJ287

..... that each parties do bear his own costs'. pursuant to the preliminary decree, a commissioner was appointed and he had submitted a report and in accordance therewith, lots were cast and a final decree was also passed on 23-12-1969. nearly eight years thereafter on 22-11-1977, the petitioner filed on application purporting to be under section 4 of the partition act, 1893, praying ..... manner been either modified or altered by any procedure known to law. in addition, the view taken in this decision runs counter to the expression of opinion in birendra nath v. snehalata devi : air1968cal380 to which attention apparently had not been drawn. therefore, it is not possible to accept the reasoning in the decision referred to by the learn d counsel ..... already been indicated and the same would hold good in respect of this decision as well. on the other hand in sheodhar prasad singh v. kishun prasad singh (air 1941 pat 4), dhavle, j., has held that an application under section 4 of the partition act may be made at the appellate stage or at any stage before the final decree.in mst. mohmadi begum ..... v. mohd. nabi hadi air1955 nuc (all) 4450, a division bench of the allahabad high court in dealing with the question whether the benefit of an application under section 4 of the partition act can be availed of during the course of execution proceedings after the final decree for .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 09 1980 (SC)

Sasanka Sekhar Maity and ors. Vs. Union of India (Uoi) and ors.

Court : Supreme Court of India

Decided on : May-09-1980

Reported in : AIR1981SC522; (1980)4SCC716; [1980]3SCR1209

..... officer so to do, a raiyat owning land in excess of the ceiling area applicable to him under section 14m, shall not, after the publication of the act in the official gazette, i.e., february 8, 1971, transfer, by sale, gift or otherwise or make any partition of any land owned by him or any part thereof until the excess land, which is to ..... that both section 4(3) and section 6(2) of the west bengal land reforms act, 1955 stood deleted by the west bengal land reforms (amendment) act, 1971 (president's act iii of 1971) and thereafter by the west bengal land reforms ..... being acquired by the state under section 14l within the ceiling limits prescribed therein.28. it will be noticed that the second proviso to article 31a : [1973]1scr326 refers to the 'ceiling limit applicable to him', which evidently refers to the law in question and not earlier law, that is section 5(1) of the west bengal estates acquisition act, 1953. it will be noticed ..... a raiyat,(iv) widow of his predeceased son, if any, where neither such widow nor any minor son or unmarried daughter of such widow holds any lands as a raiyat,(v) minor son or unmarried daughter, if any, of his predeceased son, where the widow of such predeceased son is dead and any minor son or unmarried daughter of such predeceased .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1980 (HC)

Janabai Ammal Vs. T.A.S. Palani Mudaliar

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-15-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Mad62; (1981)1MLJ492

..... (1) of the partition act. the objects and reasons behind the said section read thus:'this clause restricts the right of a female heir to claim partition of the family dwelling house so long as the male heirs do not choose to effect partition of the same but expressly recognises her right to reside in such house.'ramaprasada rao, c. j. in mookammal v. (hitrak.adivammal ..... it would mean that the contingency has arisen whereby the male members are no longer capable of preserving' the dwelling house. that is why the parliament has, under the section, allowed the female members to claim partition in case the male members choose to divide their respective shares in the house. at this juncture, we, may point out that the parliament has not ..... . 23 is satisfied.31. in the result, a. s. no. 598 of 4974 is dismissed subject to the above observations and a. s. no. 310 of 1977 and c. m. p. no. 2922 of 1979 are also dismissed. the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in both the ..... , the parties also did not come forward with any amicable settlement in this regard. accordingly, we hold that the appellant plaintiff would be entitled to a 1/10 share in item 4 house, which is not disputed by the respondents, and that she is at liberty to enforce her not for division of her dwelling house when the contingency contemplated under s .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 03 1980 (FN)

Bloomer Vs. Liberty Mut. Ins. Co.

Court : US Supreme Court

Decided on : Mar-03-1980

..... was expressly approved on the floor of the senate: "mr. butler. . . . i understand that the bill merely amends section 33 of the longshoremen's and harbor workers' act, so as to permit an employee to bring a third-party liability suit without forfeiting his right to compensation under the act. it is my further understanding that the courts have consistently held that the present ..... be required to bear a proportionate share of the longshoreman's cost of recovery was specifically drawn to congress' attention, and one witness suggested that it should be abandoned. [ footnote 5 ] instead, congress elected not to disturb the existing rule. [ footnote 6 ] recognizing that no change had page 445 u. s. 82 been contemplated, the courts continued to hold ..... . page 445 u. s. 75 if the longshoreman believes that his injuries warrant a recovery in excess of the compensation provided under the act, he may also bring a negligence action against the owner of ..... . 445 u. s. 88 . mr. justice marshall delivered the opinion of the court. under the longshoremen's and harbor workers' compensation act, 44 stat. 1424, as amended, 33 u.s.c. 901 et seq., a longshoreman is entitled to receive compensation payments from his stevedore for disability or death resulting from an injury occurring on the navigable waters of the united states .....

Tag this Judgment!

Feb 15 1980 (HC)

Janabai Ammal Vs. T.A.S. Palani Mudaliar and ors.

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Feb-15-1980

Reported in : (1980)1MLJ492

..... property act and section 4(1) of the partition act. the objects and reasons behind the said section read thus:this clause restricts the right of a female heir to claim partition of the family dwelling house so long as the male heirs do not choose to effect partition of the same but expressly recognizes her right to reside in house.ramaprasada rao, cj., in mookammal v. chitra ..... it would mean that the contingency has arisen whereby the male members are no longer capable of preserving the dwelling house. that is why the parliament has, under the section, allowed the female members to claim partition in case the male members choose to divide their respective shares in the house. at this juncture, we may point out that the parliament has not ..... 23 is satisfied.31. in the result, a.s. no. 598 of 1974 is dismissed subject to the above observations and a.s. no. 310 of 1977 and c.m.p. no. 2922 of 1979 are also dismissed. the parties are directed to bear their respective costs in both the ..... parties also did not come forward with any amicable settlement in this regard. accordingly, we hold that the appellant-plaintiff would be entitled to a 1/10 share in item 4, house, which is not disputed by the respondents, and that she is at liberty to enforce her right for division of her share in that house when the contingency contemplated under section .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 02 1980 (HC)

Shankarrao Vs. State of Maharashtra

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Oct-02-1980

Reported in : (1980)82BOMLR622; 1980MhLJ888

..... petitioners is that this means that from the beginning to the end the act has the ingredient of extra-territorial operation.18. one more example may be added under the provisions of section 11 of our act. this section deals with the restriction on partition, where any land held by a family is partitioned after the 26th day of september 1970, and it reads as follows :where ..... wonders whether it was extra-territorial in its operation. in this state of record, the proper course was to refer the matter to a third judge, who would hear the parties to the extent necessary and then decide as per earlier judgment or agree with the judge who differs from the entire judgment. if he agrees with the differing judgment, the ..... been found to have application, uniformly, in the subsequent case law.28. the second approach of the extra-territorial operations is provided in the case of sales tax act. in state of bombay v. united motors (india) ltd. : [1953]4scr1069 , a number of transactions of sales took place in bombay, but delivery was given in another state. the taxation of sales tax ..... a particular event, like the delivery of possession, would provide sufficient nexus, has been confirmed.29. a third occasion arose for the examination of this principle in state of bombay v. r.m.d. chamarbaugwala : [1957]1scr874 , where a company constituted in bangalore was carrying on the business of crossword puzzles, styled as gambling in the judgment, extensively in the bombay .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jun 16 1980 (HC)

Venubai Widow of Bajirao Ingale and anr. Vs. Saraswatibai Alias Sumitr ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jun-16-1980

Reported in : 1980MhLJ907

..... same interest as he himself had.(3) any 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 hindu succession act, 1956.section 6. 'when a male hindu dies after the commencement of this ..... 's branch from the coparcenary, the plaintiffs, by virtue of explanation 2 (and in the same manner as bajirao himself, had he so taken his share, would have been), were disabled from thereafter claiming any share in another coparcener rajaram's interest in the coparcenary property. when bajirao, if similarly situated, would have himself been so precluded, the plaintiffs claiming through ..... one-fifth share in her father-in-law deceased rajaram's interest in the joint family properties. to this suit, alienees of some of the joint family properties were made party defendants nos. 4 to 8 on the ground that the impugned alienations were not binding on the plaintiffs. resistance to the suit claim was mainly on the ground that plaintiff ..... to be for legal necessity and even otherwise not open to challenge by the plaintiffs. the suit, therefore, according to the defendants, was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed.5. the trial court held that in view of the earlier decree already obtained and realised by plaintiff venubai and her consequent separation from the joint family long prior to the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 23 1980 (HC)

Sakharam Shinde and ors. Vs. Vilas Anant Deshpande and ors.

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-23-1980

Reported in : AIR1981Bom68; (1981)83BOMLR23; 1980MhLJ384

..... 1957 is the sine qua non for postponement of the statutory right of purchase of his tenant under this section. where, as in the present case, the widow or other disabled landlord contemplated under section 31(3), avails herself or himself of the right of resumption by recourse to section 31 (1). she or he ceases to be so entitled to claim the resumption thereafter, without ..... as survey no. 316/2 whereas the remaining land which continued to be with the petitioner-tenant was numbered as survey no. 316/1.5. thereafter, the agricultural lands tribunal started proceedings under section 32-c of the tenancy act but the said proceedings were dropped in view of the fact that the landlord was a minor at that time. against the order dropping ..... (a) cannot be attracted indiscriminately merely because the tenant's landlord happens to be a disabled landlord, that is, a minor or a widow as specified in these two sections. section 32f (1) (a) will not be attracted when the widow or any such other disabled landlord seeks resumption under section 31 (1) before march 31, 1957, without regard to whether he or she fails ..... application for resumption is rejected. due to exhaustion of such right, the landlord cannot avail of section 31 (3) in spite of being a disabled landlord. in application of section 31 (3) results in application of section 32f (1) (a) also. like tenants of every other landlord applying under section 31 (i), the tenant of such a landlord also becomes an automatic purchaser of the lands .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //