Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 32 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing T. V. R. Subbu Chetty'S Family Charities vs M. Raghava Mudaliar And Others on 27 January, 1961

S.Jegatheesan vs S.Vaikundarajan on 6 September, 2019

22. As observed by this Court in T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities case [T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities v. M. Raghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC 797] , that if a person having full knowledge of his right as a possible reversioner enters into a transaction which settles his claim as well as the claim of the opponents at the relevant time, he cannot be permitted to go back on that agreement when reversion actually falls open.”
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - P Sathyanarayana - Full Document

Ravinder Kaur Grewal vs Manjit Kaur on 31 July, 2020

Saleha, AIR 1963 Pat 62 Kanhai Lal vs. Brij Lal, AIR 1918 PC 70 Dhiyan Singh vs. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1952 SC 145 T.V.R. Subbu Chetty’s Family Charities vs. M. Gaghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC 797 Rachbha vs. Mt. Mendha, AIR 1947 All 177 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs. Smt. Satyawati Sood, AIR 1972 Delhi 171 (FB) Shyam Sunder vs. Siya Ram, AIR 1973 All 382 28 light of exposition of this Court in Kale (supra). A priori, we have no hesitation in affirming the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court that the document Exhibit P­6 was nothing but a memorandum of a family settlement. The established facts and circumstances clearly establish that a family settlement was arrived at in 1970 and also acted upon by the concerned parties.
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - A M Khanwilkar - Full Document

Smt Ismailbee vs Mehtab Saheb on 22 October, 2020

Saleha, AIR 1963 Pat 62 Kanhai Lal vs. Brij Lal, AIR 1918 PC 70 Dhiyan Singh vs. Jugal Kishore, AIR 1952 SC 145 T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities vs. M. Gaghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC Rachbha vs. Mt. Mendha, AIR 1947 All 177 Chief Controlling Revenue Authority vs. Smt. Satyawati Sood, AIR 1972 Delhi 171 (FB) Shyam Sunder vs. Siya Ram, AIR 1973 All 382 light of exposition of this Court in Kale (supra). A priori, we have no hesitation in affirming the conclusion reached by the first appellate Court that the document Exhibit P6 was nothing but a memorandum of a family settlement. The established facts and circumstances clearly establish that a family settlement was arrived at in 1970 and also acted upon by the concerned parties. That finding of fact recorded by the first appellate Court being unexceptionable, it must follow that the document Exhibit P6 was merely a memorandum of a family settlement so arrived 42 at. Resultantly, it was not required to be registered and in any case, keeping in mind the settled legal position, the contesting defendants were estopped from resiling from the stated arrangement in the subject memorandum, which had recorded the settlement terms arrived at in the past and even acted upon relating to all the existing or future disputes qua the subject property amongst the (signatories) family members despite absence of antecedent title to the concerned property.
Karnataka High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - P N Desai - Full Document

Dr. Amudhan vs The State Represented By on 7 January, 2021

Sanjiv Ratanappa Ronad and another vs. Emperor9 ix. T.V.R.Subbu Chetty’s Family Charities vs. M.Raghava Mudaliar & Otrs.10 x. Rekha vs. Rathashree11 xi. Chetan vs. State of Maharashtra and others12 2 (2006) 7 SCC 365 3 2020 SCC OnLine SC 77 4 1992 SCC OnLine Bom 262 5 2018 18 SCC 807 6 (2016) 8 SCC 705 7 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 560 8 2004 SCC OnLine Bom 343 9 1932 SCC OnLine Bom 23 10 (1961) 3 SCR 624 11 AIR 2006 MP 107 12 2008 SCC OnLine Bom 679 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/
Madras High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - P N Prakash - Full Document

Krishnappa vs M/S Remco (Bhel) on 16 March, 2021

In support of aforesaid submissions reliance has been placed on T.V.R. SUBBU CHETTY'S FAMILY CHARITIES VS. M.RAGHAVENDRA MUDALIAR & OTHERS, AIR 1961 SC 797, PRAKASH NARAIAN SHARMA VS. BURMAN SHELL CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., (2002) 7 SCC 46, SOM DEV & OTHERS VS. RATI RAM AND ANOTHER, (2006) 10 SCC 788, JAI JAGANATH GASES PVT. LTD. VS. COMMERCIAL 69 TAX OFFICER, SANGAREDDY CIRCLE, MANJEERA PIPELINE ROAD, MEDAK AND ANOTHER, (2009) 2 ALPJ HC 147, P.K.SINGH VS. S.N.KANUNGO & OTHERS, (2010) 4 SCC 504, SHANTHI BUDHIYA VESTA PATEL VS. NIRMALA JAYAPRAKASH TIWARI, (2010) 5 SCC 104, RAJANNA VS. S.R. VENKATASWAMY & OTHERS, (2014) 15 SCC 471, VEDPAL (DEAD) THROUGH LRS VS. PREMADEVI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS., (2018) 9 SCC 496 and MOHAMMED YUSUF VS. RAJKUMAR, AIR 2020 SC 976 as well as order passed in KEMPATTIGOWDA ETC. VS. K.C.ASWATHANARAYANA SETTY dated 10.02.2020 passed in SLP (civil) diary no. 2854 of 2020 and judgment of this court in RFA No. 398/2012 dated 24.09.2019.
Karnataka High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Attar Singh & Ors vs Mahinder Singh & Anr on 6 April, 2023

22. As observed by this Court in T.V.R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities v. M. Raghava Mudaliar 22 case, that if a person having full knowledge of his right as a possible reversioner enters into a transaction which settles his claim as well as the claim of the opponents at the relevant time, he cannot be permitted to go back on that agreement when reversion actually falls open."
Delhi High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - C H Shankar - Full Document

Arjun Singh vs Virendra Nath And Anr. on 2 January, 1970

22. There is nothing to indicate that there was any ratification of the agreement Exh. B14 on the part of the plaintiff. The mere fact that he filed this suit in 1952 although Smt. Chameli had died in 1944 cannot amount to ratification. It is necessary to bear in mind the observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in T. B. R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities v. M. Raghava Mudaliar, AIR 1961 SC 797 that the principle of election or estoppel or ratification must be applied with due circumspection. Here no benefit whatsoever was taken by the plaintiff and, in fact, no benefit could ever accrue to him under the terms of Exh. B14 in the event of an adoption by Smt. Pushpawati. No question of ratification, therefore, arises.
Allahabad High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 174 - Full Document

Seth Banarsi Dass Gupta vs B.B. Bindal And Ors. on 29 April, 1981

(24) The learned counsel for the plaintiff also relied upon a judgment of a Supreme Court in T.V.B. Sabbu Chetty's Family Charities vs. Raghava Mudaliar & others, Air 1961 S.C. 797(7). In that case the following was laid down : "IF a presumptive reversioner is a party to an arrangement which may properly be called a family arrangement and taken benefit under it, he would be precluded from disputing the validity of the said arrangement when reversion falls open and he becomes the actual reversioner. The doctrine of ratification may also be invoked against a presumptive reversioner who though not a party to the transaction, subsequently ratifies it with full knowledge of his rights by assenting to it and taking benefit under an arrangement by which a Hindu widow alienates the property of her deceased husband would not, however, preclude a presumptive reversioner from disputing the validity of the said alienation when he becomes the actual reversioner. It must be always a question of fact a to whether the conduct of the said reversioner or which the plea of ratification is based does in law amount to ratification property so called."
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

K. Shanmugham Pillai And Ors. vs S. Shanmugham Pillai And Ors. on 10 November, 1966

(31) As regards the third plaintiff, the position of the alienees from the widows defendants 1 to 4 is much stronger. The third plaintiff having been a party to a litigation, where the will relied on by the widows had been found against, subsequently definitely bargained for and secured an immediate benefit, conceding to the alienees from the widows, absolute rights in the properties retained by the. By his conduct, he has barred himself from asserting his title on the succession opening. His case falls under the principle which is summed up in Subu Chetti's Family Charities v. Raghav Mudaliar, 1961-2 Mad LJ (SC) 1 : (AIR 1961 SC 797) thus:
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next