Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (1.19 seconds)
Documents citing N. Kasturi vs D. Ponnammal And Others on 23 February, 1961

J.Sundharambal vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 3 January, 2025

22. It is submitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in N.Kasturi Vs. D.Ponnammal and others reported in AIR 1961 SC 1302 (Civil Appeal No.373 of 1956 dated 23.02.1961) dismissed the case against the father of the petitioner because there the Late Mr.Diraviyam Pillal's wife did not opt for adopting either Mr.Kasthuria Pillai or Mr.Kalyanasundaram (Pitchaiammal's co-wife's son) as wished by the said Late. Mr.Diraviyam Pillal. The above case is no way connected to the present case questioning the sale of the temple trust properties by the 11th respondent fraudulently even without obtaining the signature of his own son Mr.Muthu Nivas @ Muthu Srinivas. Also, closing the temple from 2008 after the death of his own brother Mr.Thayumanasamy on 28.11.2008.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - C Saravanan - Full Document

Vikrant Kapila & Anr. vs Pankaja Panda & Ors. on 11 October, 2022

28. As far as possible, a Will has to be read as a whole and in case of contradictions, inconsistencies, variations or like, they have to be brought to variance with each other on a level playing field. The intention ought to be inferred from the words and the language used in the Will without reading into them or drawing any preconceived notion and without tinkering with the basic structure of the Will for deciphering their true literal meaning. The words in the Will ought to be given a plain, simple and grammatical RFA(OS) 15/2022 Page 11 of 25 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:BABLOO SHAH Signing Date:11.10.2022 19:01:03 meaning as per Dictionary without any if(s) or but(s). We find support in N. Kasturi vs. D. Ponnammal & Ors.31 wherein it has been held as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 2 - S K Kait - Full Document

Ramesh Lal Das & Another vs Dilip Kumar Das & Others on 11 April, 2023

22. To buttress his argument, Mr. Banerjee placed reliance upon the judgments delivered in cases of Arun Ch. Sinha v. Lt. Satyendra Ch. Ghosh Moulick reported in 39 CWN 322, Rabindra Nath Das v. Niloy Kr. Moitra reported in (1994) 2 Cal LT 370, A. Andisamy Chettiar v. A Subburaj Chettiar reported in (2015) 7 SCC 713, Saleha Bibi & Anr. v. Asim Kumar Chatterjee reported in (2023) 1 ICC 327, N. Kasturi v. D. Ponnammal & Ors. reported in AIR 1961 SC 1302, Navneet Lal @ Rangi v. Gokul & Ors. reported in (1976) 1 SCC 630, Gnanambal Ammal v. T.Raju Ayyar & Ors. reported in 1950 SCC 978, Uma Devi Nambiar & Ors. v. T.C. Sidhan (dead) reported in (2004) 2 SCC 321, Meenakshiammal (dead) thr. Lrs.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - T Chakraborty - Full Document

Adam Aboobacker Sait vs Kerala Wakf Board And Ors. on 26 March, 1982

12. The question whether the petitioner was rightly appointed as the Managing Trustee of the mutawalli is a matter for the Civil Court to pronounce upon. The answer would depend upon the construction of the provisions of the instrument of wakf. The canons of construction are well recognised : See Guambal Ammal v. Raju Ayyar (AIR 1951 SC 103); N. Kasturi v. D. Ponnammal (AIR 1961 SC 1302) and Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das (AIR 1963 SC 1703). It is for the Civil Court to consider the meaning and the effect of the relevant provisions according to the principles of construction. If it is permissible to rely upon extrinsic evidence of surrounding circumstances, it is' for persons who participate in the proceedings before that Court to adduce the necessary evidence. These are matters, which in their very nature, no forum other than a Civil Court is ordinarily competent to examine.
Kerala High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 4 - T K Thommen - Full Document
1   2 3 Next