Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 556 (1.39 seconds)
Documents citing V. Tulasamma & Ors vs V. Sesha Reddi (Dead) By L. Rs on 17 March, 1977

D.Vijayalakshmi vs V.Hariselvan

16. If we apply the above ratio with which we are in respectful agreement, the consequent result would be that since the two declaratory decrees obtained by the appellant being contrary to law laid down by this Court in Tulasamma's case, it will be open to the defendants as rightly held by the High Court in the impugned judgment to challenge those declarations and avoid the declaratory decree if they succeed in such challenge. In the instant case, in our opinion, the High Court rightly held that the declaratory decrees obtained by the appellant being contrary to the judgment in Tulasamma's case would not be of any assistance to the appellant to obtain the possession of the suit property.”
Madras High Court Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Radhika Raman Prasad Sinha Kamleshwar ... vs Shri Kaushal Chand Singh on 1 October, 2024

The learned Judge further held that sub-section (2) of Section 14 had no application to the present case, because the compromise was an instrument in recognition of a pre-existing right. The plaintiff-respondent went up in second appeal to the High Court against the judgment of the District Judge. The plea of the plaintiff-respondent appears to have found favour with the High Court which held that the case of the appellant was clearly covered by Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and as the compromise was an instrument as contemplated by Section 14(2) of the 1956 Act Tulasamma could not get an absolute interest under Section 14(1) of the Act. The High Court further held that by virtue of the compromise the appellant Tulasamma got title to the properties for the first time and it was not a question of recognising a pre- existing right which she had none in view of the fact that her husband had died even before the Hindu Women's Right to Properties Act, 1937. We might further add that the facts narrated above have not been disputed by Counsel for the parties."
Patna High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M.M. Shanmugasundaram, Kasthuri, ... vs Balasubramanian, Chandrasekaran And ... on 10 April, 2007

11. On the wording of the Section and in the context of these decisions, it is clear that the ratio in V. Tulasamma v. V. Shesha Reddi has application only when a female Hindu is possessed of the property on the date of the Act under sembalance of a right, whether it be a limited or a pre-existing right to maintenance in lieu cannot be applied ignoring the requirement of the female Hindu having to be in possession of the property either directly or constructively as on the date of the Act, though she may acquire a right to it even after the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Sri Harikant Singh And Ors. vs Sri Ram Krishna Sharma And Ors. on 2 May, 2007

In such view of the matter, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy AIR 1977 SC 1944 (supra), if in recognition of such pre existing right a property had been transferred to the widow of a coparcenor for her life, even before the 1937 Act came into force, she acquired a limited right in the property so transferred and she acquired full right therein by being alive even after coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1946 by virtue of Section 14(1) thereof. In the instant case, admittedly, being widow of Sukumar Das, Mangli had a pre-existing right to claim maintenance from the other survivors of the coparcenary. In lieu of such maintenance, by the deed dated 22nd August, 1939 the property in question was given to Mangli for her life. The limited right, which Mangli acquired under the deed dated 22nd August, 1939, stood converted to full right upon coming into force of the 1956 Act by reason of Section 14(1) thereof in as much as she was alive at that time.
Patna High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jupudy Pardha Sarathy vs Pentapati Rama Krishna & Ors on 6 November, 2015

“9. Section 14 and the respective scope and ambit of sub-sections (1) and (2) has been the subject-matter of a number of decisions of this Court, the most important of which is the decision in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy. The principles enunciated in this decision have been reiterated in a number of decisions later but have never been departed from. According to this decision, sub-section (2) is confined to cases where property is acquired by a female Hindu for the first time as a grant without any pre-existing right under a gift, will, instrument, decree, order or award, the terms of which prescribe a restricted estate in the property. It has also been held that where the property is acquired by a Hindu female in lieu of right of maintenance inter alia, it is in virtue of a pre-existing right and such an acquisition would not be within the scope and ambit of sub-section (2) even if the instrument, decree, order or award allotting the property to her prescribes a restricted estate in the property. Applying this principle, it must be held that the suit lands, which were given to Harmel Kaur by Gurdial Singh in lieu of her maintenance, were held by Harmel Kaur as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner notwithstanding the several restrictive covenants accompany-ing the grant.
Supreme Court of India Cites 23 - Cited by 30 - Full Document

L. Bakthavatsalam vs R. Alagiriswamy (Died) on 12 October, 2007

Even then as enumerated above, the Supreme Court, has distinguished the judgment in Tulasamma case (1977 (3) SCC 99). In the present case, it is not in dispute that Krishnammal was having a pre-existing right over the estate of her husband in respect of her maintenance and other rights before the commencement of the Act 30 of 1956, which got enlarged into absolute right under Section 14(1) of the Act. It was by virtue of her right the compromise was entered into in O.S.No.71 of 1958 and the same has been impliedly recognised by the plaintiff in O.S.No.89 of 1983 itself who has filed a suit in O.S.No.36 of 1963 which has also ended in compromise. Therefore, it can never be said that the right of Mrs.Krishnammal was restricted under Section 14(2) of the Act and the compromise decree entered should be ignored.
Madras High Court Cites 62 - Cited by 8 - P Jyothimani - Full Document

Jupudy Pardha Sarathy vs Pentapati Rama Krishna . on 6 November, 2015

“9. Section 14 and the respective scope and ambit of sub-sections (1) and (2) has been the subject-matter of a number of decisions of this Court, the most important of which is the decision in V. Tulasamma v. Sesha Reddy. The principles enunciated in this decision have been reiterated in a number of decisions later but have never been departed from. According to this decision, sub-section (2) is confined to cases where property is acquired by a female Hindu for the first time as a grant without any pre-existing right under a gift, will, instrument, decree, order or award, the terms of which prescribe a restricted estate in the property. It has also been held that where the property is acquired by a Hindu female in lieu of right of maintenance inter alia, it is in virtue of a pre-existing right and such an acquisition would not be within the scope and ambit of sub-section (2) even if the instrument, decree, order or award allotting the property to her prescribes a restricted estate in the property. Applying this principle, it must be held that the suit lands, which were given to Harmel Kaur by Gurdial Singh in lieu of her maintenance, were held by Harmel Kaur as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner notwithstanding the several restrictive covenants accompany-ing the grant.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - M Y Eqbal - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next