Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Supreme Court Upholds Family Arrangement, Dismisses Plaintiff's Claims

        Sahu Madho Das And Others Versus Pandit Mukand Ram And Another

        Sahu Madho Das And Others Versus Pandit Mukand Ram And Another - 1955 AIR 481, 1955 SCR (2) 22 Issues Involved:
        1. Ownership and inheritance of the properties in dispute.
        2. Validity of the family arrangement and its binding effect.
        3. Estoppel and the plaintiff's conduct.
        4. Legal effect of the alienations and the reversioner's rights.

        Detailed Analysis:

        1. Ownership and Inheritance of the Properties in Dispute:
        The plaintiff, Mukand Ram, claimed that the properties belonged to Nanak Chand and were inherited by his widow Mst. Pato and subsequently by their three daughters. Upon the death of the last daughter, Har Devi, in 1919, the plaintiff's rights as reversioner accrued. The defendants contended that the properties belonged to Mst. Pato as part of her personal estate and were distributed by her through a family arrangement.

        2. Validity of the Family Arrangement and Its Binding Effect:
        The defendants argued that Mst. Pato executed a family arrangement in 1875, distributing the properties among her daughters and grandsons, making them absolute owners. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claims, finding that the properties did not form part of Nanak Chand's estate and that the family arrangement was valid. The High Court reversed this, holding that the properties were part of Nanak Chand's estate and that the family arrangement was voluntary and not binding on the plaintiff.

        The Supreme Court found that the family arrangement was indeed proved through consistent conduct and admissions by the family members. The court held that whether the properties belonged to Nanak Chand or Mst. Pato, the family arrangement was valid and binding on the daughters, who were parties to it and received consideration.

        3. Estoppel and the Plaintiff's Conduct:
        The plaintiff's conduct, including admissions and a long series of transactions asserting absolute ownership, indicated assent to the family arrangement. The court found that the plaintiff, Mukand Ram, had consistently asserted such a title and had benefited from the arrangement. His admissions to Shyam Lal and the conduct of the family members over a long period established the family arrangement and precluded the plaintiff from challenging it.

        4. Legal Effect of the Alienations and the Reversioner's Rights:
        The court held that the alienations made by the daughters and grandsons were valid under the family arrangement. The plaintiff's assent to the arrangement, either explicitly or through conduct, bound him and prevented him from avoiding the alienations. The principle that an alienation by a widow is voidable and not void was applied, and the reversioner's assent to the alienation was found to be binding.

        Conclusion:
        The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's decrees, and restored the trial court's judgments dismissing the plaintiff's claims. The plaintiff was ordered to pay costs, divided between the two sets of appellants. The family arrangement was upheld, and the plaintiff's challenge to the alienations was dismissed based on his conduct and the established family arrangement.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found