Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.57 seconds)
Documents citing Palaniammal vs Muthuvenkatachala Maniagarar And Ors. on 29 August, 1917

Kurapati Radhakrishna And Anr. vs Kurapati Satyanarayana And Ors. on 23 April, 1948

The learned Judges thought that their view was supported by the decision in Palaniammal v. Muthuvenkatachala Moniagar (1924) 48 M.L.J. 83 : L.R. 52 I.A. 83 : 853.I.L.R. 48 Mad. 254 (P.C.), but in that case the question was not between the father and his descendants but between persons standing in the same degree. In such a case no doubt the separation of one member does not necessarily create a division between all the members, but it is a totally different thing where the father as the head of the family of his branch severs himself from the others. Not only himself but his descendants as well would become separated from the other branches. The learned Judges in view of this conclusion thought that the minor stood to gain by not separating himself from the rest. This again is a decision in which there was no express declaration but one had to be inferred from the conduct.
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Adiyalath Katheesumma And Anr. vs Adiyalath Beechu Alias Umma And Ors. on 4 March, 1949

(See at page 778 in Palaniamma v. Muthuvenkatachala Maniagarar (1917) 33 M.L.J. 759 at 772 and also in Rangaswami Naidu v. Sundararajulu Naidu (1916) 31 M.L.J. 472.) I believe that in most of those cases documents are generally between the member cut off and the manager of the family representing all the other members. That at any rate is my experience.
Madras High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Bhagwati Prasad Sah And Others vs Dulhin Rameshwari Juerand Another on 7 May, 1951

(vide Bal Krishna v. Ram Krishna(1) and Palaniammal v. Muthuvenkatachala(2) and Balabux Ladhuram v. Rukhmabai(3). Another thing to be noted in this connection is that it is not the case of the defendants made either in the pleadings or in the evidence that even if there was a separation between Ram Narain and Ram (1) L.R. 58 I.A. 220. (3) L.R. 30 I.A. 130. (2) L.R. 52 I.A 83.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 48 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

C. Abdul Basith Sahib vs Shanmughasundaram And Ors. on 9 December, 1955

10. It is now well established law that the coparceners in a joint family can by agreement amongst themselves separate and cease to be a joint family, and on separation are entitled to partition the joint family property amongst themselves: Palaniammal v. Muthuvenkatachela (1924) 48 M.L.J. 83 : L.R. 52 I.A. 83 : I.L.R. 48 Mad. 254 (P.C.). In Hindu law, partition does not mean simple division of property into specific shares.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ganapathy vs Subramanyam Chetty And Ors. on 25 January, 1929

There is are mark in the judgment in the latter case to the effect that the withdrawal must be before trial, but that that means before a final decree is made clear by reference to Palaniammal v. Muthuvenkatachala Moniagarar 43 Ind. Cas. 833 : 33 M.L.J. 759, the same case before this Court, from the judgment in which it appears that the withdrawal took place during the pendency of an appeal. In this view it would be difficult to hold that a declaration of intention by the father, which is subject to revocation, must necessarily effect a separation of his sons from that date. There is authority for holding that when a partition has been actually effected either, by a decree, or by agreement between the parties, that partition effected by the father is binding on his sons and can only be questioned on some such ground as fraud or collusion.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Krishnaswami Naidu And Ors. vs Perumal Alias Nammayya Naidu And Anr. on 17 April, 1924

8. The principle underlying these oases is that when there is a definite intention to divide, that intention should be given effect to; but where, as in this case, that intention has been expressed, but shortly afterwards negatived by the withdrawal of the partition suit, the mere filing of the suit cannot be deemed to be a sufficient proof of that intention in the light of subsequent events. This point was considered in Palaniammal v. Muthuvenhatachala (1917) 33 M.L.J. 759 where it was held that it was open to a co-parcener who has filed a suit for partition to abandon that intention before the suit proceeds to decree and to continue in a state of jointness.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1