M. Krishnan vs Ramaswami And Ors. on 3 January, 1984
The next decision cited by the learned Counsel for the appellant is Pattusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal (1976-2 M.L.J. 225) wherein it was observed as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.75 seconds)Documents citing
Pattusami Padayachi vs Mullaiammal And Ors. on 17 December, 1975
Periambillai And Ors. vs Somayan on 5 February, 1993
It has been held in Pattusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal (1976)2 M.L.J. 225-(D.B.), thus:
Mayavan vs Radhakrishnan on 31 July, 2008
(iii) MLJ (II) 1976 225 ((Pattusami Padayachi vs. Mullaiammal and others:
P.Arumugham vs P.Balasubramaniam on 8 August, 2008
(iii) MLJ (II) 1976 225 ((Pattusami Padayachi vs. Mullaiammal and others:
Dorairaj vs Doraisamy .. 1 St on 12 August, 2009
(iii) MLJ (II) 1976 225 ((Pattusami Padayachi vs. Mullaiammal and others:
S.G.Subburaj vs Gangaiah Naicker .. 1St on 28 September, 2010
(b) In 1976 II MLJ 225 (Pattusami Padayachi V. Mullaiammal and others),
the Division Bench of this Court has held that "properties purchased by one or
other of the members of a coparcenary or joint family when the family is joint
cannot as a matter of course be treated as joint family property. The coparcener
who challenges such title in the member and pleads that they should also be
brought to the hotch-pot ought to establish by cogent and mature evidence that
there was enough surplus income which was available in the joint family and
which positively could be the foundation for such annexures made by one or the
other of the members of the joint family. In all cases, definite proof is
required that the further purchase in the names of joint family members ought to
have been made and could not have been made otherwise than from the surplus
income of the family."
Amudha vs Janardhanan .. ... on 13 July, 2015
(iii)Pattusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal and others, 1976 (2) MLJ 225:
Amudha vs Janardhanan .. ... on 13 July, 2015
(iii)Pattusami Padayachi v. Mullaiammal and others, 1976 (2) MLJ 225:
N.Dharmalingam vs N.Ayyavoo [Died on 11 October, 2022
(23) The position in respect of a property standing in the name of female
member of joint family is considered by a Division Bench of this
Court in Pattusami Padayachi Vs. Mullaiammal and Others
reported in 1976 [2] MLJ 225 and paragraphs No.18 and 19 are
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 24
AS.No.643/2008 & CRP.No.1962/2013
relevant and hence, they are extracted hereunder:-
Takkali Appalanaidu (Died) By Lrs. vs Adari Satyanarayana And Ors. on 13 March, 2002
12. The learned Counsel also relied on a judgment of the Madras High Court in Pattusami Padayachi case (supra) wherein a Division Bench of Madras High Court observed that the nomenclature or phraseology used by the parties ought not to be the sole guide to understand a document. The document has to be considered as a whole without taking one or the other of the sentences therein torn out of the context to find the intention of the parties.