Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.90 seconds)

V.Selvarani (Died) vs V.Selvarani

17.In so far as the disinheritance of the other heirs of the Sowdammal, the learned counsel would submit, the daughters have gone out of the family after marriage and the plaintiff in O.S.No.307 of 2004, who is the other son was not taking care of the mother, and it was the 2 nd defendant who was looking after her. This impelled the mother to execute a will in favour of her daughter-in-law/wife of the 2nd defendant. The learned 18/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.481, 482, 516 & 517 of 2013 counsel would also rely upon the judgment in Valsa Jose Vs. V.B.Chandran and Others reported in 2019 (5) CTC 625 authored by one of us (R.Subramanian. J) to contend that there is no pleading that the ostensible owner namely, 9th defendant stood in a fiduciary capacity to the plaintifff or Ramasamy Chettiar and as such the property was purchsed in her name could be treated as joint family property.

V.Selvarani (Died) vs V.Selvarani

17.In so far as the disinheritance of the other heirs of the Sowdammal, the learned counsel would submit, the daughters have gone out of the family after marriage and the plaintiff in O.S.No.307 of 2004, who is the other son was not taking care of the mother, and it was the 2 nd defendant who was looking after her. This impelled the mother to execute a will in favour of her daughter-in-law/wife of the 2nd defendant. The learned 18/34 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.481, 482, 516 & 517 of 2013 counsel would also rely upon the judgment in Valsa Jose Vs. V.B.Chandran and Others reported in 2019 (5) CTC 625 authored by one of us (R.Subramanian. J) to contend that there is no pleading that the ostensible owner namely, 9th defendant stood in a fiduciary capacity to the plaintifff or Ramasamy Chettiar and as such the property was purchsed in her name could be treated as joint family property.

V.Selvarani (Died) vs R.Balakrishnan

17.In so far as the disinheritance of the other heirs of the Sowdammal, the learned counsel would submit, the daughters have gone out of the family after marriage and the plaintiff in O.S.No.307 of 2004, who is 18/35 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.Nos.481, 482, 516 & 517 of 2013 the other son was not taking care of the mother, and it was the 2 nd defendant who was looking after her. This impelled the mother to execute a will in favour of her daughter-in-law/wife of the 2nd defendant. The learned counsel would also rely upon the judgment in Valsa Jose Vs. V.B.Chandran and Others reported in 2019 (5) CTC 625 authored by one of us (R.Subramanian. J) to contend that there is no pleading that the ostensible owner namely, 9th defendant stood in a fiduciary capacity to the plaintifff or Ramasamy Chettiar and as such the property was purchsed in her name could be treated as joint family property.
1