Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.33 seconds)
Documents citing Mollaya Padayachi And Anr. vs Krishnaswami Iyer And Ors. on 29 February, 1924

Aloke Mitra vs Controller Of Estate Duty on 20 May, 1971

In Mollaya Padayachi v. Krishnaswami Aiyar, A.I.R 1925 Mad 95 and Parvathi Ammal v M.R. Sivarama Iyer, A.I.R. 1927 Mad. 90, it was emphasised that the English law of presumption of the wife's advancement does not exist in the Indian law, but, on the contrary, the presumption here is that where a document is taken in the name of a man and his wife, the former providing the money, the transaction is, so far as the wife is concerned, benami for the husband. The mere fact, therefore, that money was deposited in the name of the wife does not justify a presumption that she was the beneficial owner of the money. When a person purchases a property in the name of his son or wife or near relation, there is always, in India, a resulting trust in his favour, and the presumption is that he is the real owner thereof, and it will not be presumed that the son or wife or any other person, in regard to whom he occupies the position of toco parentis, was intended to be benefited by the said purchase.
Allahabad High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Nanduri Saradamba vs Parakala Pattabhiramayya on 14 February, 1930

Special considerations, arising out of the repurchase of the property by the ostensible owner at a Court sale, were held by Kumaraswami Sastri, J., in Mollaya Padayachi v. Krishnaswami Aiyar (1924) 47 M.L.J. 622 to qualify a mortgagee from that owner to a charge upon the property; but we think it is clear from the learned Judge's observations that in the absence of those circumstances he would have held that the knowledge of the mortgagee of the infirmity of his mortgagor's title would have been fatal to his claim.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Balkrishna Koundar vs Amirthavalli Ammal And Anr. on 10 February, 1959

3. The learned counsel has invited my attention to Mollayya Padayachi v. Krishnaswami Iyer, 47 Mad LJ 622 at p. 640: (AIR 1925 Mad 95 at p. 105) in this connection. A Bench of this Court consisting of Spencer and Kumaraswami Sastri JJ. has held that the son of a Hindu father would be having sufficient interest in the preservation of the property, which belonged to the father in his own right, as his self-acquired property, and that such interest of the son would be as the reversionary heir of the father, and that as such reversionary heir his son would be entitled under Section 91 of the Transfer of Property Act to redeem the property or to apply to have the court sale set aside under Order 21, Rule 89, Civil P. C. If, according to this decision, the son of a Hindu father could be treated as a reversionary heir of the father in respect of his separate or self-acquired property for purposes of asking for a sale being set aside, then certainly the wife of a husband, who has left property behind, could also be considered to be interested in the property, because, if the husband turns out to be dead, certainly she would become entitled to the property under, the present case. That being the case, I think that it would not be a violation of the language contained in Rule 89 of Order 21 to say that the wife would be a person holding an interest in the property of her husband.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1