Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.63 seconds)
Documents citing Pandipati Subbarami Reddi (Minor) By ... vs Pandipati Ramamma on 31 March, 1920

M.N. Aryamurthy And Anr. vs M.D. Subbaraya Setty (Dead) Through L. ... on 20 September, 1971

12. Technical objections were also raised to the alleged family arrangement embodying Ext. A A on the ground that one of the sons, M.L. Vasudeva Murthy, defendant No. 8, had just attained majority when he had signed the acceptance of the Will and the other son, Dasaratha Setty, who was then a minor, had also signed the Will. There is no evidence to show that Vasudtva Murthy who was a callowlad at the time, had independent advice when he had signed along with his brothers; and, so far as the minor Dasaratha Setty is concerned, his signature below the Will has absolutely no voluet Lachiah was the guardian of Dasartha Setty at the time and, as pointed out in Subbarami Rfddi v. Ramamma (supra), the arrangements made in the will could not have been supported as against Dasaratha Setty on the ground that his father Lachiah was also a party to it. And, when one of the sons of the family shown to have not accepted or participated in the family arrangement, the family arrangement as a binding agreement between the several coparceners must fail (See Mohammed Amin v. Vakil Chand 1952 S.C.R. 1133).
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

V. Kalyanaswamy (D) By Lrs. vs L. Bakthavatsalam (D) Thr. Lrs. . on 17 July, 2020

“..But unfortunately, Lachiah, though a father, could not, under the Hindu Law, dispose of, by will, joint family property or any part thereof and as a will it was clearly inoperative on the various dispositions made by him (See Parvatibai v. Bhagwant Pandharinath: 39 Bom 593: AIR 1915 Bom 265 and Subbarami Reddi v. Ramamma; 43 Mad 824: AIR 1920 Mad 637).
Supreme Court of India Cites 115 - Cited by 13 - K Joseph - Full Document

Ib B. Bindal vs Banarsi Das Gupta on 5 August, 1981

Lachiah was the guardian of Dasaratha Setty at the time and, as pointed out in Subbarami Reddi vs. Ramamma (supra) the arrangement made in the will could not have been supported as against Dasaratha Setty on the ground that his father Lachiah was also a party to it. And when one of the sons of the family is shown to have not accepted or participated in the family arrangement, the family arrangement, as a binding agreement between the several co-parceners must fail (See Mohammed Amin vs. Vakil Ahmad. . "We have dealt with all the points raised in the course of the arguments before us and, in our view the findings of the High Court are quite unexceptionable." (Portion of para 18).
Delhi High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Deivachilai Aiyangar vs Raghupathi Venkatachariar And Ors. on 5 February, 1925

2. The written will of the plaintiff's father was clearly invalid in so far as it purported to dispose by will of joint family property [vide Subbarami Reddi v. Ramamma (1920) ILR 43 M 824 ]; and the appointment under it of testamentary guardians to manage the properties of the plaintiff (a minor coparcener) was also illegal [vide Chidambaram Pillaiv Rangsaswami Naicker (1917) ILR 41 M 561 : 34 MLJ 381 (FB)]. The alleged oral will, even if true, was also invalid for the same reason that the plaintiff's father had no power to dispose of immoveable property belonging to the joint family after his death.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Baljinder Singh vs Rattan Singh on 5 August, 2008

In Subbarami v. Ramamma ((1920 (43) Mad 824) the Madras High Court held that a will made by a Hindu father bequeathing certain family properties for the maintenance of his wife was invalid as against his infant son through it would have been a proper provision if made by him, during his lifetime. This may be in a sense right. There is however no compelling logic in not regarding wills "as gifts to take effect upon death at least as to the property which they can transfer and the persons to whom it can be transferred". Convenience would seem rather to point to the extension to the sphere of Hindu Law of the general principle of jurisprudence that what a man can give by act inter vivos, he can give by will".
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 28 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Lakhmi Chand vs Musammat Anandi on 15 March, 1926

12. It is well established law that a co-sharer in a Mitakshara joint family without having obtained partition can with the consent of all his co-sharers mortgage or charge the share to which he would be entitled on a partition of the joint family property, but the consent of all the co-sharers must be obtained, and as pointed out by Sir John Wallia, C.J. in Subbarami Reddi v. Ramamma (1920) I.L.R. 43 Mad. 824, a father who is a co sharer with minor son cannot give such a consent for his minor son.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Thayammal vs Perumal Chetti And Anr. on 6 August, 1925

The validity of this decision has been questioned in a later case Subbarami Reddi v. Ramamma (1920) ILR 43 M 824. but not definitely dissented from on the ground that the testator obtained the consent of all his coparceners. In the present case it is alleged that there were sons of defendants 2 and 3 in existence on the date of the will and we have no evidence that the assent of their guardians was obtained.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Venkoba Sah And Anr. vs Ranganayaki Ammal And Ors. on 3 May, 1936

1122 has been somewhat shaken by Subbarami Reddi v. Ramamma (1920) I.L.R. 43 Mad. 824 but we are unable to agree that this is so. The all-important feature in that latter case was the absence of consent, and on p. 828 Wallis, C.J., seems to us to approve rather than to disapprove of the view that a 'will' executed with the consent of all other coparceners and not revoked before death should be enforceable as a family settlement or arrangement.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next