Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing G. Narayanasawmi Naidu Garu vs Tirumalasetti Subbaya And Anr. on 28 August, 1912

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

In Narayanasawmi Naidu Garu v. Tirumalasetti Subbayya 16 Ind. Cas. 698 : (1918) M.W.R. 96 : 24 M.L.J. 79. I said, "I am of opinion that Courts should lean against the continuance of joint tenancies and against claims of survivorship." See page 100. "The ancient Hindu Law knew, according to the learned writer, Mr. J.C. Ghose, no such principle as joint tenancy and no principle of survivorship.... Equity also does not favour joint tenancies and rights of survivorship." I know it has been said that the Mitakshara recognised the principle of survivorship and joint tenancy and I myself have, following the language used by the highest authorities, stated so. The Mitakshara first created a revolution (it may be that it sanctioned by its authority or recognised the revolution already being effected by the then prevailing customs) by giving the son's rights by birth jointly with the father in ancestral properties, taking advantage of the moral admonitions addressed in ancient texts to the father not to alienate his ancestral properties so as to leave his children penniless. Then the right of the widow of a sonless co-parcener to inherit her husband's share was denied to her and the other male co-parceners were made the inheritors of that share. The whole of Chapter II, Section I, placita 1 to 39, of the Mitakshara which contains the ingenious special pleading by which the widow of an undivided sonless co-parcener was disqualified from inheriting his share in the estate, does not contain a word about survivorship. Vijnaneswara professes to find equally authoritative texts for either view as to the rule of inheritance, some texts recognising the right of the widow and some excluding her on the ground of incapacity to perform religious ceremonies and he then professes to reconcile the texts by saying, not that any principle of survivorship prevents the inheritance of the widow, but that the succession itself to the undivided share of the deceased co-parcener passes to the remaining co-parceners. This idea of a distinction between accretion by survivorship and the passing of property by inheritance or succession proper seems absolutely foreign to Hindu Law. I cannot but believe that because the other co-parceners were to inherit the deceased sonless co-parcener's share under the Mitakshara instead of the proper female heir under the old texts (namely, the widow or the daughter, if the widow had died) inheriting it, a confusion of ideas based upon the notion of English Law that the surviving joint tenants get the deceased tenant's share by survivorship was introduced into the consideration of cases under the Hindu Law. That there are numerous differences between the joint tenancy of the co-parceners in a Mitakshara Hindu family and the joint tenancy as understood in English Law has been recognised in several cases.
Madras High Court Cites 51 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

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

In Narayanasami Naidu Garu v. Tirumalasetti Subbaya (1913) M.W.N. 96, I said, "I am of opinion that Courts should lean against the continuance of joint tenancies and against claims of survivorship." See page 100. "The ancient Hindu Law knew, according to the learned writer Mr. J.C. Ghose, no such principle as joint tenancy and no principle of survivorship....Equity also does not favour joint tenancies and rights of survivorship." I know it has been said that the Mitakshara recognised the principle of survivorship and joint tenancy and I myself have, following the language used by the highest authorities, stated so. The Mitakshara first created a revolution (it may be that it sanctioned by its authority or recognised the revolution already being effected by the then prevailing customs) by giving the sons rights by birth jointly with the father in ancestral properties, taking advantage of the moral admonitions addressed in ancient texts to the father not to alienate his ancestral properties so as to leave his children penniless. Then the right of the widow of a sonless coparcener to inherit her husband's share was denied to her and the other male coparceners were made the inheritors of that share. The whole of Chapter II, Section 1, placita 1 to 39 of the Mitakshara which contains the ingenious special pleading by which the widow of an undivided sonless coparcener was disqualified from inheriting his share in the estate does not contain a word about survivorship. Vijnaneswara professes to find equally authoritative texts for either view as to the rule of inheritance, some texts recognising the right of the widow and some excluding her on the ground of incapacity to perform religious ceremonies and he then professes to reconcile the texts by saying, not that any principle of survivorship prevents the inheritance of the widow but that the succession itself to the undivided share of the deceased coparcener passes to the remaining coparceners. This idea of a distinction between accretion by survivorship and the passing of property by inheritance or succession proper seems absolutely foreign to Hindu Law. I cannot but believe that because the other coparceners were to inherit the deceased sonless coparcener's share under the Mitakshara instead of the proper female heir under the old texts (namely, the widow or the daughter if the widow had died) inheriting it, a confusion of ideas based upon the notion of English Law that the surviving joint tenants get the deceased tenant's share by survivorship was introduced into the consideration of cases under the Hindu Law. That there are numerous differences between the joint tenancy of the coparceners in a Mitakshara Hindu family and the joint tenancy as understood in English Law has been recognised in several cases.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 27 - Full Document
1