Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.37 seconds)
Documents citing Rathinasabapathi Odayar Declared ... vs Gopala Odayar And Ors. on 1 November, 1928

Jogar Nath Gir vs Sher Bahadur Singh on 26 February, 1934

99 and Rathinasabapathi Odayar v. Gopala Odayar 1929 A.W.N. 170, that sapinda relationship depends on a lawful marriage. Coming to the time of Yajnavalkya in Chap. 2, Section 2, it is stated that both parents (pitarau) will succeed to the estate of their son after certain prior heirs have been exhausted. The Benares school has made it clear that between the two parents the mother takes precedence. It is however pointed out that the word pitarau must mean parents who are legally married, and in this connexion reliance is placed on the use of the same word in Chap. 1, Section 3 of Yajnavalkya, where it is stated that sons divide equally both the effects and debts after their two parents (pitrau), which it is said must mean parents who are legally married. When the texts of Yajnavalkya say that:
Allahabad High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jagar Nath Gir vs Sher Bahadur Singha And Anr. on 26 February, 1934

It is argued that although the mother is not specifically mentioned she is still treated as a sapinda, and it has been made clear in the cases of Shome Shankar Rajendra v. Rajesar Swami Jangam 21 A. 99 : A.W.N. 1898, 170 and Rathinasabapathi Odayar v. Gopala Odayar 121 Ind. Cas. 126 : A.I.R. 1929 Mad. 545 at p. 555 : 29 L.W. 696 : 26 M.L.J. 673 : Ind. Rul. (1930) Mad. 142 that sapinda relationship depends on a lawful marriage. Coming to the time of Yajnavalkya in Chap. II, Section 2, it is stated that both parents (pitarau) will succeed to the estate of their son after certain prior heirs have been exhausted. The Benares school has made it clear that between the two parents the mother takes precedence. It is, however, pointed out that the word pitrau must mean parents who are legally married, and in this connection reliance is placed on the use of the same word in Chap. I, Section 3 of Yajnavalkya, where it is stated that sons divide equally both the effects and debts after their two parents (pitrau), which it is said must mean parents who are legally married. When the texts of Yajnavalkya say that of heirs dividing after the death of the father let the mother also take an equal share and that if he (father) makes the allotments equally, his wives to whom no separate property has been given by the husband or the father-in-law, must be rendered partakers of like portions then it was meant that the lady should be legally married.
Allahabad High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

His Highness Sri Sri Sri Lieut-Col. Sir ... vs Raja Rajeswara Rao And Anr. on 10 February, 1939

160 and Rathinasabapathi Odayar v. Gopala Odayar (1928) 56 M.L.J. 673 to which the Subordinate Judge has referred in my opinion correctly state the basis for the assessment of the amount. It is not a matter of granting a compassionate allowance. The amount must be fixed with regard to the position of the family. An illegitimate son will not in the ordinary course occupy so prominent a position as a legitimate son and the rule that an illegitimate son of a Sudra is only entitled to half of what a legitimate son is entitled to in his father's estate may be taken as a guide in fixing the amount of his allowance for maintenance. I see no reason why the conclusion of the Subordinate Judge should not be accepted and therefore I concur in his finding that a reasonable allowance is Rs. 250 per mensem for each of the respondents.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 23 - Full Document
1