Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.64 seconds)
Documents citing Anthonyswamy vs M. R. Chinnaswamy Koundan (Deed) By L. ... on 6 October, 1969

Ajit Datt vs Mrs. Ethel Walters (Decd.) Through ... on 28 September, 2000

property which finds its approval in Anthonyswamy v. M. R. Chinaswamy, AIR 1970 SC 223. wherefrom the principle deduclble is that if it had been intended by a Hindu converted to Christianity to be governed by the law he was governed before and such law had in fact been followed in continuity conversion he would continue to be governed by such law even after embracing Christianity on matters not specifically covered by any Statutory law or tenet or rule of Christianity one is professing.
Allahabad High Court Cites 48 - Cited by 4 - G P Mathur - Full Document

Smt. Savita Thakur And Ors. vs State Bank Of India And Ors. on 11 May, 1999

In Anthonyswamy v. M.R. Chinaswamy Koundan (died) by Lrs., AIR 1970 SC 223, the apex court held that the doctrine of pious obligation is not of a religious character or is inextricably connected with Hindu religious belief but has passed into the realm of law and the same is a necessary and logical corollary to the doctrine of the right of the son by birth to a share of the ancestral property and that both these conceptions are correlated. By way of further emphasis, it was added that the liability imposed on the son to pay the debt of his father is not a gratuitous obligation thrust on him by Hindu law but is a salutary counterbalance to the principle that the son from the moment of his birth acquires along with his father an interest in joint family property.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - D Raju - Full Document

Vyankates Dhonddeo Deshpande vs Sou. Kusum Dattatraya Kulkarni & Ors on 27 September, 1978

In reaching this conclusion the High Court overlooked the principle that this doctrine of pious obligation is not merely a religious duty but has passed into the realm of law (see Anthonyswamy), (supra). On the facts of that case this principle was applied to parties belonging to Tamil Vannian Christians. Viewed from this angle, the High Court was in error in holding that Dharmashastras of Hindus never contemplated improvement loans being given by the Governments of the day which were usually monarchies and, therefore, a debt of the kind which is contemplated under the Loans Act could never have been under the contemplation of the writers like Brihaspati and Narada in whose texts the pious liability is imposed on the sons and others. It is not possible to subscribe to this view for the reasons hereinbefore mentioned.
Supreme Court of India Cites 21 - Cited by 14 - D A Desai - Full Document

Joyce Pushapalath Karkada Alias Shiri vs M/S Shameela Nina Ravindra Shiri on 12 September, 2013

property which finds its approval in Anthonyswamy v. M.R. Chinaswamy, AIR 1970 SC 223. wherefrom the principle deduclble is that if it had been intended by a Hindu converted to Christianity to be governed by the law he was governed before and such law had in fact been followed in continuity conversion he would continue to be governed by such law even after embracing Christianity on matters not specifically covered by any Statutory law or tenet or rule of Christianity one is professing.
Karnataka High Court Cites 33 - Cited by 1 - A Byrareddy - Full Document
1   2 Next