Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.62 seconds)
Documents citing Mayilswami Chettiar vs Kaliammal And Ors. on 23 August, 1967

Angammal And Ors. vs Balasubramaniam And Anr. on 19 June, 1979

The decision relied upon by the learned Counsel for the appellants viz-, Mayilswami Chettiar v. Kaliammal with the position as if obtained prior to the introduction of Section 11 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act and cannot therefore be pressed into service by the learned Counsel for the appellants, even with reference to the transactions which have come into existence after 25th August, 1956.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Sundaramoorthy And Anr. vs Shanmugha Nadar And Ors. on 8 January, 1980

10. Mr. Parasaran contends that the right of the mother to act as a guardian having been enshrined in the Will and which right was exercised by her with the acquiescence and active participation of the father of the minors and who had attested the document, cannot be equated to a ewe where without the knowledge of the natural guardian, the property had been sold by a de facto guardian. To support this contention he relies on the decision rendered in Mayilswami Chetti v. Kaliammal 1969-1 Mad LJ 177 (a decision rendered subsequent to Act 82 of 1956). But it will be seen that no reliance had been placed in the said decision on S. 11 of the Act or any other provisions of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Athiappa Gounder And Anr. vs A. Mohan And 3 Ors. on 22 December, 1994

12. We have heard the elaborate arguments of Mr. S. Rajasekar for the appellants/defendants 1 and 4 and Mr. S.P. Subramaniam for the 1st respondent/plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the appellant reiterated the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. He invited our attention to the decisions reported in Kasturi Lakshmibayamma v. Sabnivis Venkoba Rao ; Shanthi Parshad v. Kunj Lal (A.I.R. 1953 Pepsu 151); Mayilswami Chettiar v. Kaliammal [1969(I) M.L.J. 177 = (1968) 81 L.W. 406]; Muppudathi Pillai v. Krishnaswami [1959 (II) MLJ, 225 = 72 L.W. 543 (F.B.)]; and V. Muthukumara Chetty v. Anthony (AIR 1915 Madras 296). Mr. S.P. Subramaniam, learned Counsel for the 1st respondent addressed arguments supporting the judgment of the Court below.
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 4 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Athiappa Gounder And Anr. vs A. Mohan And Ors. on 22 December, 1994

12. We have heard the elaborate arguments of Mr. S. Rajasekear for the appellants/ defendants 1 and 4 and Mr. S.P. Subramaniam for the 1st respondent/ plaintiff. Learned Counsel for the appellants reiterated the grounds raised in the memorandum of appeal. He invited our attention to the decisions reported in Kasthuri Lakshmibayamma v. Sabnivis Venkoba Rao , Shanti Parshad v. Kunj Lal A.I.R. 1953 Pepsu 151, Mayilswami Chettiar v. Kaliammal (1969)1 M.L.J. 177, Muppudathi Pillai v. Krishnaswami (1959)1 M.L.J. 225: A.I.R. 1960 Mad.
Madras High Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

A.R. Deivasigamani Mudaliar vs T.N. Somasundaram Nadar on 11 March, 1997

16. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the respondent has cited the decision reported in Mayilswami Chettiar v. Kaliammal and Ors. (1969) 1 M.L.J. 177 in which the learned Judge has held that the mother can act as a de facto guardian of the minors and alienate their property for necessity. In that case, the father has attested the mortgage deed and the management of the property had been all along with the mother. In those circumstances it was held that the alienation by the de facto guardian would be valid. This decision will directly apply to the facts of the present case.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Selvam vs Mangaiyarkarasi on 24 January, 2013

The question that arose for consideration was whether the mortgage executed by the mother as the defacto guardian of the minors, while the father is alive, is valid or not. The Madras High Court, in the above case, gave an interesting finding that both the father and the mother are natural guardians and that only if a contest arose as between the father and the mother as to who should be the guardian for the mother, then it will be the father, who would be the guardian. On this finding, it was held that if the alienation of minor's estate is made by the natural guardian, it would be valid if it is for necessity. It was further held that the father having attested the mortgage deed and the management of the property, having all along, been with the mother, the father should also be deemed to have acquiesced in the mortgage.
Madras High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 2 - S Vimala - Full Document

Punyamanthula Satyanarayana vs Punyamanthula Lakshmanaswamy And Ors. on 23 August, 1996

I have also to hold that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Panni Lal (3 supra), the decision of Alagiriswami, J, (as the learned Judge was then) in Mayilswami Chettiar v. Kaliammal, 1988 (1) MLJ 177 wherein he held that "even when there is a legal guardian in existence, any alienation of minor's property by a de facto guardian would be valid if it is for necessity", is no longer good law.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 20 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Chellan Alias Velayutham vs Sasidharan on 2 December, 2008

(b) In 81 LW 406 (Mayilswami Chettiar V. Kaliammal and others), this Court has held that the position of the defacto guardian under Hindu law is well established. Even where there is a father for the minors alive, the mothers can, acting as the defacto guardian of the minors, alienate their property for necessity. It is amply clear that even when there is a legal guardian in existence, any alienation of minor's property by a defacto guardian would be valid if it is for necessity.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A Selvam - Full Document

T.M. Krishnamoorthy Pillai vs Mangalam on 17 February, 1998

In Myilswami Chettiar's case, 1969 (I) MLJ. 177, a learned single Judge of this Court expressed the vies that even where there is a father for the minors alive, the mother can, acting as de facto guardian, of the minors alienate their property for necessity and that the father having attested the mortgage deed, should be deemed to have acquiesced in the mortgage and the alienation would be valid, if it is for necessity. Such decision came to be rendered by the learned single Judge, as could be seen from a perusal of the judgment, with out any reference to the embargo placed on the powers of the de facto guardian under the provisions of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, apparently influenced by the principles governing such a question under the old Hindu Law, and that tool prior to the coming into force of the Hindu Minority arid Guardianship Act, 1956, and therefore can be of no assistance for the appellants in this case.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1