Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.91 seconds)
Documents citing Meenakshi And Three Ors. vs Muniandi Panikkan And Anr. on 26 August, 1914

Soundararajam, Minor, By His Mother And ... vs T.R.M.A.R.R.M. Arunachalam Chetty ... on 14 October, 1915

In the very recent case Meenakshi v. Muniandi Panikkan 25 Ind. Cas. 957 : 1 L.W. 704 : 27 M.L.J. 353 at p. 360 : (1914) M.W.N. 672 : 16 M.L.T. 270 : 38 M. 1144, my learned brother, Seshagiri Aiyar, J., says: I am of opinion that this treatment" (that is, the favourable treatment of illegitimate sons of Sudras as regards right to share in paternal and ancestral property) was due to the idea that marriage among then (Sudras) was not so strictly formal and ceremonial as in the case of the higher classes. Continuous concubinage was regarded as equivalent to marriage although the children of this irregular union did not rank equally with those with whose mother there was a formal marriage."
Madras High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Rathinasabapathi Odayar Declared ... vs Gopala Odayar And Ors. on 1 November, 1928

If the father was a co-parcener with his brothers or brothers' sons the illegitimate son cannot get a share even if he has a legitimate half-brother if the legitimate half-brother does not seek partition from his uncle or cousins. The adopted son's position is different. He by reason of his adoption becomes a co-parcener with his father and gets a right in the grandfather's property equal to that of the father and therefore it is not proper to place the illegitimate son on a par with the adopted son. Some observations in Meenakshi v. Muniandi Panikkan (1914) I.L.R. 38 M. 1144 : 27 M.L.J. 353 are relied upon by the respondents. There the point before us did not arise for consideration. The competition was between the legitimate children and the illegitimate children of a prostitute.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Narayani Ammal And Anr. vs Govindaswami Naidu on 28 October, 1974

7. Mulla on Hindu Law, 14th Edition, points out that the illegitimate children of a Hindu woman are not excluded from inheritance to their mother's stridhana. But he would add on the authority of Meenakshi v. Munandi Panikkan, 1 Mad LW 704 = (AIR 1915 Mad 63) that when a woman dies leaving both legitimate and illegitimate children, the legitimate children are preferred to the illegitimate. The textual Hindu law as well as decided cases have clearly laid down that succession to stridhana property is quite different and distinct from succession to the property of a male Hindu and the difference in the lines of succession is based on different theories or concepts. Succession to stridhana property is based on the blood relationship of the mother to her stridhana heirs. There is no legitimate reason why, when the blood relationship is the basis for stridhana succession, we should interpret, the word daughter in the original text above referred to as confined only to a legitimate daughter. As Trevelyan in his book on Hindu Law, Edition 3, at page 500, observed, "illegitimacy is not a bar to the succession of children to their mother's property". It is true that he also stated that in a competition between legitimate and illegitimate children, the rights of the former prevail. Perhaps that would be so and we doubt its correctness; when the competition is between a legitimate and an illegitimate daughter. But this point we do not decide in this case as it does not arise. When once an illegitimate daughter is recognised, as an heir both by interpreting the word in the original text as including an illegitimate child and also on the basis of decided cases, there is no reason why the stridhana line of succession should be entirely departed from, with a view to favour the son exclusively. It is only when the stridhana line of succession is unavailing that it is permissible to go to the other line of succession.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

T.S. Kothandaram Naidu vs Subbier on 16 November, 1926

On the other hand, in Meenakshi v. Muniyandi Panikkan where a legitimate son was preferred to an illegitimate daughter, and Jagannath v. Narain where a husband was preferred to an illegitimate son, the nearer heir was disregarded in favour of a remoter heir on the ground that the former was a degraded relation. In these cases the degraded relation, far from being preferred, was treated, on account of his very degradation as being under a disability.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Namburi Subbayya And Anr. vs Ghaganti Chandrayya (Deceased) And ... on 18 April, 1941

Had it been necessary for me to consider the case attempted to be put forward on behalf of the defendants before the lower appellate Court in their applications for leave to amend their written statements, the statement of law in Meenakshi v. Muniandi Panikkan (1914) 27 M.L.J. 353 : I.L.R. 38 Mad. 1144, would have to be closely examined. But in view of the order granting the amendment having been set aside, the question does not arise for decision.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Viswanatha Mudali And Anr. vs Doraiswami Mudali And Anr. on 12 February, 1925

23. I do not think that the placita from various ancient texts really assist this case because they are not in my opinion dealing with the rights of succession or inheritance in favour of illegitimate children at all, except in the case of the illegitimate son of a Sudra ; that is, in these texts 'son' means a legitimate son and 'daughter ' means a legitimate daughter. This applies even to the passage from Nanda Panditha quoted at P. 207 of Jolly's Hindu Law (1885 Edition). Illegitimate children have no place in Hindu Law when they are legitimate heirs except in the special case already referred to [see Meenakshi v. Muniandi Panikkan (1914) ILR 38 M 1144 : 27 MLJ 353. I also find very few of the cases cited before us of any real help since this is not a contest between an illegitimate offspring and a legitimate, or a case of a claim by an illegitimate offspring to succeed to his putative father's collaterals. The question is purely whether two illegitimate sons of the same mother have between them heritable blood.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

K.V. Thangavelu vs The Court Of Wards And Ors. on 17 April, 1946

But as pointed out in Meenakshi v. Muniandi Panikkan (1914) 37 M.L.J. 353 : I.L.R. 38 Mad. 1144 at p. 1148, it is well established that, under the Mitakshara system of inheritance, the offering of spiritual benefit is no index to rights of property or preference. Lastly, it was pointed out that the illegitimate son was ranked among the sons in the Mitakshara, while the widow was classed among the heirs who took only in default of male issue.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K.Natarajan vs Mrs.Gopalasundari on 6 September, 2011

"12.....It seems to us that having regard to this trend of legislation reflecting the changing social approach to succession, we will be justified in interpreting the word daughter in the original text as including an illegitimate daughter as well. We are also of opinion that once an illegitimate daughter is an heir, as we hold she is, to succeed to her mother's stridhana property, so long as she is available, the son, who is not in the nearer line of stridhana heirs, cannot have preference and exclude an illegitimate daughter. On that view, we are of opinion that Meenakshi Vs. Muniandi, should be overruled."
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1   2 Next