Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.32 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Seetha And Ors. vs Kayiyath Krishnan And Ors. on 25 November, 1974

Mariyakutty vs Noorjahan on 25 August, 2004

Those two items according to the counsel, are self-acquired properties of Nabeesumma. Counsel also pointed out A2 Razi referred to by the counsel for the appellant was not signed by the first defendant, consequently it would not bind her. She also submitted there is no reason to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Counsel furthey submitted that the decision reported in 1971 KLR 222 was later overruled by a Full Bench of this Court in Seetha and Ors. v. Krishnan and Ors., 1975 KLT 156.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - K Radhakrishnan - Full Document

Arayath Koroth Suma vs Muvila Karunakaran Nambiar on 21 July, 2010

25. The courts below have considered the above issue in considerable detail and have come to the conclusion that the property is taken by the legatees as tavazhi property. In fact the first appellate court has gone into this aspect in considerable detail. It has considered the facts and principles of the decision reported in Seetha's case S.A.655/97 & con.cases. 18 and then came to the conclusion that the said decision was rendered with reference to the facts of the said case.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 0 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document

Nullikkodan vs Ayisumma on 13 February, 2002

The question involved in this case is with regard to the nature of allotment of property to a natural group in a marumakkathayam thavazhi partition and in the light of the decisions in the two Full Benches in Mary's case and Seetha 's case (supra), the appeal has to be decided against the appellants on this aspect. The learned. Counsel appearing for the appellants also brought to our notice Section 18 of the Marumakkathayam Act which says that succession to the property obtained by an individual on partition shall be governed by the Islamic Law of Inheritance. In this case the property was not obtained by the individual member but by a natural group consisting of the mother and children and therefore that provision is not applicable in the facts of the case. This provision is corresponding to Section 7 of the Hindu Succession Ac,t. Since the parties; are followers of Marumakkathayam Law the general principle of Marumakkathayam Law have to be applied except to the extent of specific provisions made in the Mappila Marumakkathayam Act.
Kerala High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kamalam vs Devaki on 24 March, 2006

Before the Full Bench decision in Seetha's case 1975 KLT 156 (F.B.), another Full Bench in Janamma Pillai v. State 1974 KLT 750 (FB), has also taken the view that the property gifted by a person to his wife and children, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, is to be treated as thavazhi property of the donees. Therefore, the mere absence of.the word "thavazhi" in the Will excuted by Pokkinan by itself will not show that the properties were to be enjoyed as co-ownership property. It is also to be noted that in 1954 a registered partition deed was entered into as evidenced by Ext. A2 wherein the plaintiff and her children obtained plaint B-schedule property as thavazhi property and the same is not in dispute. Therefore, the existence of a thavazhi consisting of the plaintiff and her children as early as in 1954 would itself show that when Pokkinan intended his daughter and all her children to be benefited by the Will, the intention was to benefit the thavazhi of Devaki and not the persons mentioned in the Will only.
Kerala High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Ponthinoda Sainabi And Ors. Etc. vs Vatakkiloda Aboobackerkoya And Ors. ... on 30 May, 2001

In the above decision, Shamsuddin, J. after referring to the decision in Seetha v. Kayiyath Krishnan. 1975 Ker LT 156 : (AIR 1975 Kerala 70) (FB), held that there is no presumption in the erstwhile Muhammadan Law that the gift in favour of a wife and some of the children will enure to the benefit of the thavazhi. This position coupled with what is stated in the Gazetteer shows that (property in this case belongs to Agathi Island) the gift was made in favour of Kunhubee. It cannot be said to be enure to the benefit of the thavazhi.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

K.K. Padmavathi Amma And Ors. vs K.K. Padmanabhan Nair And Ors. on 1 February, 1990

8. I am unable to agree with the contention of the learned counsel. Plaintiff, 1st defendant and her children form a natural tavazhi and there is a presumption under Marumakkathayam Law that such a bequest is in favour of the tavazhi. When a gift, bequest or purchase is made in favour of the wife, and all the children, there is a presumption in the customary Marumakkathayam Law as prevalent in the Malabar area, that the bequest, purchase or gift is to the tavazhi. Under the rules of customary Marumakkathayam Law in Malabar, prior to the coming into force of Madras Marumakkathayam Act, it was only in cases where the gift, bequest or acquisition was made in favour of a Marumakkathayee woman and all her or in the names of all the children who by themselves constitute a tavazhi, the mother being dead, that a presumption would arise that the acquisition was for the benefit of the tavazhi and there was no scope for raising any such presumption in cases where the gift, bequest or acquisition is in favour of the wife alone or of the wife and some of the children alone leaving out the others. (See Smt. Seetha v. Kayiyath Krishnan, AIR 1975 Ker 70 FB).
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1