Publisher's Synopsis
This historic book may have numerous typos and missing text. Purchasers can usually download a free scanned copy of the original book (without typos) from the publisher. Not indexed. Not illustrated. 1897 edition. Excerpt: ...reason of Shib Persad's death, sought to bring upon the records his widow's name as if the property had been divided. In Babaji Parshram v. Kashi Bai (1879) I. L. R. 4 Bom. 157, the Bombay Court held that where there was no indication of an intention to presently appropriate and enjoy in a manner inconsistent with the ordinary state of enjoyment of an undivided family, an agreement to merely divide was not of itself sufficient to effect a partition. The Judges said--" we feel nothing to support the conclusion that the decree operated to change the character of the property. The direction 'that the estate be divided' was, at best, but an inchoate partition which remained to become legal by an appropriation in execution of the respective shares." It should be noted that the Privy Council cases of Doorga Persad and Joynarain Giri were not cited in argument or referred to in the judgment. In Chidambaram Chettiar v. Gauri Nachiar (1879) I. L. R. 2 Mad. 83, the younger of two brothers sued his brother and some other defendants for recovery of a moiety of the family-property after setting aside certain encumbrances created by the elder brother in favour of the other defendants. The Court, after holding that the property was partible and the younger brother was entitled to a moiety, was enquiring into the validity of the encumbrances, when the younger brother died without sons. The question, thereupon, arose as to whether the younger brother died in a state of separation so that his widow might inherit his share. The Privy Council held that the younger brother died in a state of separation. They said: "Their Lordships are of opinion that the judgment must be taken to be equivalent to a declaratory decree determining that there was...
