Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.28 seconds)Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. vs Mool Chand Sharma on 26 February, 2013
13. The learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance on
Ghanshyam Dass and others Vs. Dominion of India & Ors. [(1984) 3
SCC 46]; Kailash Vs. Nankhu & Ors.[(2005) 4 SCC 480]; Sona Bala
Bora and others vs. Jyotirindra Bhatacharjee [(2005) 4 SCC 501]; B.K.
Narayana Pillai Vs. Parameswaran Pillai and another[(2001) SCC
712]; Rajesh Kumar Aggarwal and others Vs. K.K. Modi and others
[(2006) 4 SCC 385)]; and T. Madhava Kurup Vs. T.C. Madhava Kurup
Vs. T.C. Madhava Kurup (dead) by Lrs. and others [(2006) 4 SCC 399].
However, none of these judgments is applicable to the issue under
consideration and, therefore, reliance upon these judgments is wholly
misplaced.
Yarthyayani Amma vs Madhavan Nair on 23 September, 2008
The judgment of the Supreme
Court in Madhava Kurup's case in my opinion would decide the issue
against the appellant. The case before the Supreme Court was one
whether the parties were governed by Marumakkathayam Law of
inheritance. The question which arose was whether the suit properties
being tavazhi properties devolved on the two surviving male
members of the tavazhi after the death of the last female member as
co-owners, or whether the suit properties devolved upon one of them
as the last surviving male owner by survivorship, who acquired the
same as his absolute property. The Supreme Court held that while
under the Hindu Law, descent is traced through males in the
Marumakkathayam system of inheritance, it is traced through females.
In the case of a Hindu joint family a single male coparcener may
continue the coparcenary with his sons who may be born later, but in
the absence of a female member a tavazhi cannot be continued by
male members alone. It was also noticed that if the sole surviving
member of the tavazhi is a female different considerations may arise.
The Supreme Court would further held that if the descent is traceable
only through females, in the absence of a female member the tavazhi
must come to an end with no chance of there being a female member
AS. N0. 579/99
-11-
to continue the line. The rule of survivorship in such circumstances
ceases to operate and the surviving male members, in the absence of
a tavazhi, must inherit the property as tenants in common and share
it equally. When the findings of the learned Subordinate Judge are
examined in the background of the exposition of the
Marumakkathayam Law by the Honourable Supreme Court I become
inclined to hold that those findings do not warrant any interference.
Mrs.Susheela Karunakaran vs K.K.Bharathan on 9 July, 2008
5. Now, the position has conclusively been settled by the Apex Court
in the decision in Madhava Kurup v. Madhava Kurup {2006 (2) KLT
382 (SC)}. It was held that "if the descent is traceable only through
females, in the absence of a female member, the Tavazhi must come to an
end with no chance of there being a female member to continue the line.
The rule of survivorship in such circumstances ceases to operate and the
surviving male members, in the absence of a Tavazhi, must inherit the
property as tenants in common, and share it equally." In the light of the
above binding judgment, we find that the finding rendered by the court
below on that aspect has to be sustained.
Mahendra Kumar Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 January, 2016
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner has
been retired from the post of Upper Division Teacher on 30.6.2015,
thereafter order dated 27.7.2015 (Annexure P/1) has been issued
directing recovery of `1,60,936/- stating inter-alia that there was
erroneous fixation in favour of the petitioner. He would further submit
that now that order has been modified and `85,487/- is held to be
recoverable amount, but no opportunity of hearing was granted
despite the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of
State of Punjab and others v. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) and
2
1
others and by this Court in the matters of Vidya Shankar Tiwari v.
State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh) and others 2 and Ram-
chandra Kurup v. State of C.G. & others 3. In the aforesaid cases, it
has been repeatedly held by the Supreme Court and by this Court
that no recovery can be made without affording any opportunity of
hearing. However, it appears that the authority, unmindful of settled
legal position, has issued the impugned order dated 27.7.2015.
1