3263803
Descripción
Fichas por Rohit Beerapalli, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
Creado por Rohit Beerapalli
hace casi 9 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Karta's word is final in any court of law. The only remedy against the Karta is to ask for a partition. | Radha Krishna Das v. Allu Ram |
| When father gifts self acquired property, the intent has to be considered. If it is intended to be Joint Property, it cannot be considered the self acquired property of the son. | Arunachalan v. Murgantha |
| If a corparcener allows other family members to use self acquired property, or income from such a property, it cannot be taken as intent to blend the property. | Malesappa v. Malappa |
| If a person is able to get learning because of funds from the Joint Property, his personal income will be considered as self acquired property, not joint property, as it is due to his own intellectual capacity. [Gains of Learning Act] | Parbati Kaur v. Sarangadhar |
| Alienation outside the 3 doctrines (necessity, benefit, obligation) is invalid. If there is no necessity, consent of all coparceners is needed. If one of them is a minor, he can challenge the alienation up to 3 years after he attains majority. | Raghubanmani v. Ashok Prasad |
| Actual compulsion to pay not needed. Only a burden needs to be shown towards the Karta for the alienation to be valid. I.E. It is not necessary to be sued for a debt, it is enough that the debt merely exists. | Rani v. Shanta |
| Karta wanted to sell property to pay off father's mortgage. Value of property 4000, sold for 3000. Sale for insufficient consideration invalid. Conditions for valid alienation- 1) Existence of need, 2) requirement is for lawful purpose, 3) No alternative/ monetary resource available, 4) Prudent man (Reasonable Third Party) in the shoes of the karta, in the same circumstances, in the same situation, would have done the same thing. | Arvind v. Anna |
| Karta sold property to buy a new property in a better area. Held that alienation is valid for the purpose of migrating for better living conditions. | Vani Misatti v. Jaya Varudu |
| Valid transactions for alienation- 1) Sale of infertile land for the purchase of more fertile land. 2) Sale of many small plots for one big plot. 3) Sale of a small part of a property for the improvement of the property. | Palimappa v. Tulsimony |
| Personal Money Decree can be enforced against a personal share in the coparcenary property. | Girdharilal v. Kantalal |
| The father/Karta has the authority to alienate the property. | Balamkand v. Kamlavati |
| Coparcenary has the right to challenge an alienation in the absence of consent from other coparcenaries. | Sushil Kumar v. Ram Prasad |
| Failure to challenge the alienation by one generation does not preclude successive generations from challenging it. | Marukara Properties v. Beharilal Marukara |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.