Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.96 seconds)
Documents citing V. Navaneetha Krishna Thevar vs Ramasami Pandia Thalavar And Ors. on 24 November, 1916

Killi Latchamma And Anr. vs Killi Appanna And Ors. on 20 April, 1921

In Katama Nachiar v. Dora Singa Tevar (1875) 2 I.A. 169 at page 191 it was Laid down by the Privy Council "there can be no declaratory decree unless there is a right to consequential relief" and Navaneetha Krishna Thevar v. Ramaswami Pandiya Thalavar (1916) I.L.R. 40 Mad. 871 held that reversioners are not entitled to a decree that they are the next reversioners unless the question is incidental to the grant of some other relief to which they may be entitled. Here the plaintiffs are unquestionably entitled to bring a suit for a declaration as being next reversioners provided the adoption was also declared to be valid.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Beni Prasad vs Lala Parma Nand And Ors. on 30 November, 1936

16. There is no direct authority of this Court upon this section, but the precise point has been considered by a Bench of the Madras High Court in Navaneetha Krishna Thevar v. Ramaswami Pandia A.I.R. 1918 Mad. 889. In that case the plaintiff claimed to be the nearest reversioner to the last male owner of zamindari property and sued for a declaration that certain alienations made by the Court of Wards during their management of the estate on behalf of the adoptive mother of the late zamindar on her succeeding to the estate as his heiress on his death were not binding on the estate beyond her lifetime. The Court however held that the power of the Court of Wards under Section 35, Madras Court of Wards Act, was in terms absolute and not governed by the restrictions in the latter part of the section and that the Court of Wards had absolute powers of alienation in respect of the property taken under its charge although the person on whose behalf the management was taken up was only a limited owner of the property like a widow. Consequently they held that the alienations in the case were valid without proof of necessity such as would support an alienation by a Hindu widow. It is to be observed that Section 35, Madras Court of Wards Act, is in precisely similar terms to Section 38, U.P. Court of Wards Act, 1912, and therefore this case can be regarded as a clear authority upon the construction to be given to Section 38 of the Act governing these provinces. At pp. 875 and 876, Wallis, C.J., after quoting the terms of the section, observes:
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

A.R.L.S.V.L. Sevugan Chettiar And Ors. vs Raja Srimathu Muthu Vijaya Raghunatha ... on 15 August, 1938

128 at p. 136 and of this Court in Navaneetha Krishna Teva v. Ramasami Pandi Thalavar (1918) 5 A.I.R. Mad. 889.) Exhibit 12-a is a copy of an order issued by Mr. Fischer in July 1867 to the Tahsil, dar of Kandadevi, one of the subdivisions of the Sivaganga estate. This document also has not been properly translated in the printed record. As stated in the opening paragraph of the document, Mr. Fischer was the manager of the Sivaganga estate at that time. The document refers to the petitions received in the head office and to the enquiries made by the manager in connexion with that dispute. There were two matters in dispute at the time, one relating to the alleged interference by the Iluppakfcudi ryots with water flowing through a channel from the Pudu Kanmoi to the Kalluvayal Kanmoi and the other relating to the cultivation of lands in the Ulvoi of Kalluvayal Kanmoi by the Iluppakkudi ryots. As regards the channel, Mr. Fischer directed that as it was a mamool source of supplying to the Kalluvayal tank, it should not be permitted to be interfered with by the Iluppakkudi people. But as regards the cultivation of the Ulvoi lands, Mr. Fischer referred to the Collector's order of 1841 (Ex. 12) and upheld the claim of the Huppakkudi people to cultivate them. He also directed that the Sivaganga estate should not collect any assessment from the Iluppakkudi people in respect of such cultivation.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

S. Ramaswamia Pillai vs Krishnammal on 3 October, 1934

902 and Subbiah Thevar v. Balasubramania Pandia Thalavar (1931) M.W.N. 1157 at 1160. It is necessary therefore, in considering whether this petition should have been allowed, to look at the circumstances under which the suit was filed. The defendant in the present suit had brought a suit against the plaintiff's husband to recover a sum of Rs. 1,575 odd. The defendant's husband in that case said that he had on the very day of the alleged deposit in the present case, namely, 5th February, 1929, paid a sum of Rs. 1,000 to the defendant out of a sum which he had realised in the execution of two decrees. He also produced a receipt for this sum. It was found that the receipt was not genuine and the fund out of which the alleged payment was made nonexistent. This finding was confirmed on appeal. Admittedly, the suit sum said to have been deposited that day from the same fund has been made over as a gift by the plaintiff's husband to the plaintiff and the allegation in the petition praying for security is that she is a mere puppet in the hands of her husband and that as the husband does not wish to pay the Government stamp duty nor to be mulcted with costs in case he fails he has put forward the plaintiff to sue in forma pauperis. These facts are fully set out in the petition asking for security. The plaintiff in her counter admitted that she had no property of any kind and that she had no means of furnishing security. As regards the specific facts set out in the petition about O.S. No. 11 of 1930 and A.S. No. 17 of 1931, the plaintiff simply says that the facts contained in paragraphs 5 to 8 are not true; she does not specifically challenge any particular fact therein stated. In my opinion, these circumstances are sufficient to show that she is bringing this suit for her husband and not bona fide on her own behalf.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Rarichan (Minor) By Guardian Unnooli ... vs M.R. Anantanarayana Aiyar on 2 December, 1937

323 and Subbiah Thevar v. Balasubramania Pandia Thalavar (1931) M.W.N. 1157. Thus, the fact that the appellant here is both a minor and a pauper, does not by itself entitle him to resist the application. In this case the effect of Burn, J.'s order is that the minor pauper is a mere creature in the hands of persons well able to find security. This being so, the learned Judge's order is confirmed and the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed with costs.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1