Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.82 seconds)
Documents citing N.Krishnammal vs R. Ekambaram & Ors on 16 April, 1979

M. Sivagnanam (Died), M. Nagarajan, M. ... vs S. Rajeswari, S. Anusuya, S. Janaki, M. ... on 5 July, 2002

In N.Krishnammal Vs. R.Ekambram and Others . There was one Palaniandi. He had three sons. The son Nataraja is the one who is relevant to this case. The bequest was made to Nataraja for his life time and if he left any male issue they would take the said properties but if there are no male issues "my heirs" shall take the properties. The observations of the Supreme Court are as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 3 - P Sridevan - Full Document

Raj Kumari Sharma vs Rajinder Nath Dewan And Ors. on 25 March, 1987

(28) It is apposite to refer at this stage to a decision of the Supreme Court in N. Krishnammal v. R.. Ekambaram & Ors., . Controversy in that case hinged around the scope and construction of Clause 5 of the Will. The testator in Clause 5 of the Will stated : "MY third son, Nataraja Pillai shall take the income accruing from the properties.........After his lifetime, if he leaves any male issue, they shall take the aforesaid properties, with powers of alienation ' such as gift, usufructuary mortgage and sale. If there are no male issues as aforesaid, my heirs shall take the aforesaid properties."
Delhi High Court Cites 40 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Susila Ammal vs Indiraniammal on 10 February, 1999

6. Per contra, Mrs.Prabha Sridevan submitted that the concept of rule against perpetuity could not be brought in or imported into Ex.A-1 wherein the recitals were unambiguous and clear as to succession in the event of failure of any particular line of the legatees. Learned counsel also relied oh the provisions of Sections 87, 88 and 113 of the Indian Succession Act and also the decision of the Supreme Court in N.Krishnaammal v. R.Ekambaram, . The duty of the court is only to ascertain the intentions of the testator. The guide to interpret the Will is the Will itself and his intentions have to be ' gathered from the language of the Will.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

S.Veerappan (Died) vs Saraswathi (Died) on 17 October, 2025

This view seems to have been approved by the Supreme Court in N.Krishnammal v. R. Ekambaram and Ors. AIR 1979 SC 1298. The Supreme Court held that legal terms such as “heirs” used in a “WILL”, must be construed in a legal sense, unless a contrary intention is clearly expressed by the testator. The word “heir” cannot normally be limited to male issues only. It must mean all persons who are entitled to the property of another under the law of inheritance.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dr. Mahesh Chand Sharma vs Smt Raj Kumari Sharma And Ors on 1 December, 1995

A mere reading of Section 120 would indicate that it is not attracted in the present case. The death of Satyawati was not a specified uncertain event. The decision of this Court in N. Krishnammal v. R. Ekambram & Ors. (1979 (3) S.C.C. 273) is of no relevance herein. That was a clear case of contingent bequest. In the present case, the bequest is not a contingent one. If so, the bequest is not postponed within the meaning of Section 120.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 379 - B P Reddy - Full Document
1   2 Next