Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)
Documents citing Achutha Menon vs Jaganatha Menon And Ors. on 30 September, 1983

C.T. Radhakrishnan vs C.T. Viswanathan Nair And Anr on 16 January, 2006

Similarly, we are also not inclined to accede to his prayer to reconsider the decision in Achutha Menon vs. Jaganatha Menon & Others (supra), as regards the view taken therein following the above decision and also regarding the question of estoppel feeding the grant negatived in that decision. We think that these appeals can be decided on a construction of Exhibit-B-9, the transaction entered into by Cheriyammu Amma and her children and Viswanathan Nair.
Supreme Court of India Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Changaroth Lakshmi Amma vs Unknown

24. The learned counsel appearing for the 1st respondent relied on the decision reported in Achutha Menon v. Jaganatha Menon and Others [1983 KHC 212] and argued that in the case of undivided tharawad, effect of transfer of specific interest in favour of karnavan through a release deed by the member of tharawad, it cannot be construed as relinquishment of joint interest resulting in loosing the right of partition. According to the learned counsel, unless the member of the joint family gets property by means and bounds, he is not entitled to sell his undivided share in the joint family property and the assignee will not get any right and in such S.A.No.523 of 2002 26 circumstances, the assignee is not entitled to get the benefit of section 43 of Transfer of Property Act as well.
Kerala High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - K Ramakrishnan - Full Document

Kolladath Thamasikkum Unnikutty'S Son ... vs Kozhambrath Gopalan

20. The dictum laid down in the decision reported in Achutha Menon v. Jaganatha Menon and Others (1983 KLT 939) that undivided share of the member of the tarwad is not alienable is not applicable to the facts of this case as the decree in O.S.No.23/1890 had become final and that cannot be reopened after long lapse of time as the decree in that suit has not been challenged by the predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs 1 to 26 in O.S. No.556/86 and such contention was also not raised in that suit even if such a contention is raised that was rejected and the decree against him was passed and that is binding on his successors and they are not entitled to reopen the same. They had no case that the decree in O.S.No.23/1890 was obtained by fraud or misrepresentation and that is not binding on the family. Such a contention is not raised in the suit as well. So under circumstances, the courts below were perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiffs 1 to 26 in O.S.No.556/86 are not entitled to get any share in the property and they are not entitled to get the decree as claimed as well.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K Ramakrishnan - Full Document
1