Example of ram given in section 17..... not clear...... sir I think their is a mistake.... first condition that is 'if ram dies in year 2000 '...... As i understood....... at the expiration of the longer period such direction will cease to have effect it will become void i.e., transferor death or 18 years whichever is longer.... So in first cndtn i.e., if ram dies in year 2000 the direction will have effect only upto year 2000 not upto 2005 bcoz the longer period here is ram's death...... 2005 doesnt come into picture nd the direction will cease to have effect on the expiration of ram i.e., year 2000 Plssss reconsider it sir.....
A transfers property to B in 1940 with a direction that the income arising out of the property is to be accumulated till 1970 (30 years). A dies in 1965. The during which the transferor is alive is more than 18 years from the date of the transfer, but being the longer of the two periods, the direction is valid till 1965. If, however, the transferor dies in 1950, then longer period would be 18 years and accordingly the direction would remain valid till 1958. P.S. this is the illustration is taken from the textbook Transfer of property act. by S N Shukla. It is contradicting from what you have explained in this video.
sir i think the example you used to explain doctine of accumulation where ram dies in 2000 is wrong, in this case the accumulation will end in the year 2000 itself as the period of 18 years has already passed
Suppose A transferred property to B for life and after that to c(unborn).Now, 'c' he attend the age of majority but till that time B didn't die.so who will be controling the property at that time?
Hello sir....Im wanted to know about the doctrine of acceleration..please attach the video..as I am having the presentation tomorrow..couldnt find it anywhere ..I searched a lot everywhere but could not find it anywhere😭...if someone finds it please send it to me....I am so thankful for your help..
Your illustration is not correct as per as my concern......if Ram dies in 2000..than the property will dispose of at that time......and if he dies in 1991 ..than propetry will dispose of on 1998.
Sir your example of doctrine of accumulation was fabulous
Sir in the very 1st slide...in example when ram dies in 2000...then bhim has to give till 2000...not 2005
Pronunciation for Lord McNaughten is MEC NOU TEN sir. Very nice lectures
Example of ram given in section 17..... not clear......
sir I think their is a mistake.... first condition that is 'if ram dies in year 2000 '...... As i understood....... at the expiration of the longer period such direction will cease to have effect it will become void i.e., transferor death or 18 years whichever is longer....
So in first cndtn i.e., if ram dies in year 2000 the direction will have effect only upto year 2000 not upto 2005 bcoz the longer period here is ram's death......
2005 doesnt come into picture nd the direction will cease to have effect on the expiration of ram i.e., year 2000
Plssss reconsider it sir.....
True
A transfers property to B in 1940 with a direction that the income arising out of the property is to be accumulated till 1970 (30 years).
A dies in 1965. The during which the transferor is alive is more than 18 years from the date of the transfer, but being the longer of the two periods, the direction is valid till 1965. If, however, the transferor dies in 1950, then longer period would be 18 years and accordingly the direction would remain valid till 1958.
P.S. this is the illustration is taken from the textbook Transfer of property act. by S N Shukla. It is contradicting from what you have explained in this video.
There is no time limit for living person. Time limit applicable only for unborn
Ganesh Poojary - Law for All where is direction for accumulation given for unborn child?
i think the illustration in the book is the correct way to understand this section.
I gone through the example now itself from book .. I think the book is correct .. because after death of ram .. whom he will give the income !?
sir i think the example you used to explain doctine of accumulation where ram dies in 2000 is wrong, in this case the accumulation will end in the year 2000 itself as the period of 18 years has already passed
Suppose A transferred property to B for life and after that to c(unborn).Now, 'c' he attend the age of majority but till that time B didn't die.so who will be controling the property at that time?
Max at age of the 18 the unborn should get it. That is clarified under my video on perpetuity. Section 14 comes into picture
It's for 18 years or 21...years in book it has given 21 years
Sir I am unable to understand how to calculate the accumulation..?? Please kindly requesting you to explain on the board. Clearly please sir.
Why til 2005 when Life of transferor is over in 2005 which itself is longer then 18 years
The agreement is for 25 years
Sir what is the meaning of remoter legal heir in thalluson case?
Must be a far relative. Not gone to such extreme details of the case law ☺️
Hats off to u sir
Sir,
7:04 can't able to understand....
Sorry that I couldn't be useful for you. I will improve
Nice explanation section 17..t q sir..
Hello sir....Im wanted to know about the doctrine of acceleration..please attach the video..as I am having the presentation tomorrow..couldnt find it anywhere
..I searched a lot everywhere but could not find it anywhere😭...if someone finds it please send it to me....I am so thankful for your help..
Sorry. Occupied with Evidence Act
@@GaneshPoojaryLawforAll Ok Sir.Thank you for your reply
Great
Keep it up your struggle
Very much helpful sir
Thank you. Please share among your classmates :-)
Thank You Sir
Your illustration is not correct as per as my concern......if Ram dies in 2000..than the property will dispose of at that time......and if he dies in 1991 ..than propetry will dispose of on 1998.
I second you!
Nice video
Thank u sir..
Good representation.
Kannada medium students goskara kannada dalli video madi sir please
Sir can u give pdf of ur notes
Sorry
Indian succussion act