Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (2.16 seconds)
Documents citing Vedachela Mudaliar vs Subramania Mudaliar on 7 July, 1921

Prdda Rami Reddi And 3 Ors. vs Gangi Reddi on 15 December, 1924

40. We are bound by the decision of the Judicial Committee and giving effect to the view adopted in Vedachela Mudaliar v. Subramania Mudaliar (1921) I.L.R., 44 Mad., 753 (P.C.), we must hold that the maternal uncle's son is the preferential heir on the ground of superior efficacy of oblations. The mother's sister's son as well as the mother's brother's sou are both Attna Bandhus and are both. expressly mentioned in the Mitakshara. They are both related on the mother's side and they are both equally removed from the propositus. The Allahabad High Court held that the maternal uncle's son is nearer to the deceased than the maternal aunt's son but the Bombay High Court was of the opinion that both were equally near to the propositus. In my opinion, it is s unnecessary to inquire whether the Allahabad view or the Bombay view is correct. I would prefer to base my judgment on the surer ground referred to by the Privy Council, that of superior religious efficacy.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Sagili Pedda Rami Reddi And Ors. vs Narreddi Gangireddi on 15 December, 1924

63. We are bound by the decision of the Judicial Committee and giving effect to the view adopted in Vedachela Mudaliar v. Subramania Mudaliar A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 33, we must hold that the maternal uncle's son is the preferential heir, on the ground of superior efficacy of oblations, The mother's sister's son as well as the mother's brother's son are both Atma Bandhus, and are both expressly mention in the Mitakshara. They are both related on the mother's side and they are both equally removed from the propositus. The Allahabad High Court held that the maternal uncle's son is nearer to the deceased than the maternal aunt's son; but the Bombay High Court was of the opinion that both were equally near to the propositus. In my opinion, it is unnecessary to enquire whether the Allahabad view or the Bombay view is correct. I would prefer to base my judgment on the surer ground, referred to by the Privy Council, that of superior religious efficacy.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Navaneethakrishna Marudappa Thevar vs The Collector And Agent To The Court Of ... on 2 April, 1935

In Vedachela Mudaliar v. Subramania Mudaliar (1921) L.R. 48 I.A. 349 : I.L.R. 44 Mad. 753 : 41 M.L.J. 676 (P.C.) the contest was between the propositus' mother's brother and the propositus' grandfather's daughter's son Y. It will be seen that Y was five degrees away from the propositus and X was three degrees away. Spiritually Y was completely unconnected, his oblations going to an entirely different line of ancestors namely his father and father's father, and father's father's father, and his mother's father etc. none of which is the same as the propositus' father etc. and mother's father etc. On the other hand X was spiritually connected with the propositus, the maternal grandfather of the propositus being X's father. Thus X was nearer in both senses. But if one regarded apiritual benefit as the primary test there was really nothing to argue about. Y could not be compared with X. He was no more connected with the propositus than a stranger. If that were the crucial test one would have expected his claim to have been disallowed on the broad ground that he was unconnected with the propositus except by blood, which did not arise for consideration unless it appeared that no one was spiritually connected; that as X was spiritually connected it was unnecessary to consider blood relationship at all. The actual course the trial, the arguments, and the judgments took was very different. What was being debated there was whether a claimant ex parte paterna (Y) necessarily, and because he fell within that class, succeeded over a claimant ex parte materna (X). That is to say, having divided cognates into the broad classes in ascending order, matru, pitru, atma bandhus, do you then continue with the sub-divisions (still) in ascending order of merit ex parte materna, ex parte paternal!
Madras High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Debi Das And Anr. vs Mukat Behari Lal And Ors. on 1 October, 1942

A reference to the judgment delivered by Mr. Amir Ali in Vedachela Mudaliar v. Subramania Chettiar ('22) 9 A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 33 makes it clear that no such change over in the case of cognates was contemplated and the rule above referred to, which was affirmed towards the end of the judgment, obviously does not make religious efficacy the only test among bandhus of the same class, though it does make it an admissible test, and it is perhaps worth noting that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge, to whose judgment their Lordships have referred and which was held to be well founded, was that the religious test was only applicable if the proximity test failed. The final conclusion at which the judgment of the board then arrived is stated as follows:
Allahabad High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Jatindra Nath Roy vs Nagendra Nath Roy And Ors. on 4 January, 1928

Their Lordships observe at page 376* ''The question of priority as between atmabandhus ex parte paterna and those ex parte materna has been the subject of much discussion,-- the latest word on the subject being found in the case of Vedachela Mudaliar v. Subramania Mudaliar (9) which decided in 1921, that as between pitri bandhus, and matribandhus, the preference given to the former is settled" It may be pointed out that in Vedachela's case (9) the question as to priority as between pitribandhus and matribandhus was not disputed. It was admitted in that case that the parties in controversy were both related to the deceased as atmabandhus. But there can be no question that as between patri bandhus and matribandhus, pitribandhus are entitled to priority. The question, therefore, as to the priority of atmabandhus who are related through the father and those who are related through the mother seems to have been left in as much obscurity with reference to the general principle enunciated in the cases I have cited, as before. I do not think having regard to the divergence of judicial opinion, that I should hazard an attempt to lay down any general principle with regard to the point in controversy raised in the various decisions. It seems to me it would be a fruitless endeavour. I shall therefore, confine myself to the decision of the present question on principles with regard to which there is no controversy and that principle is that where the parties are related in the same degree, the preferential right should be in him. who confers the greatest spiritual benefit on the deceased.
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Virangauda Lingangauda Hiregaudar vs Yellappa Shidappa Tambakad on 10 July, 1942

6. If the full bench had proceeded on a different principle to that on which the Privy Council proceeded, we should have to consider whether there was any good reason for limiting the principle on which the Privy Council proceeded to the Madras Presidency. But the difficulty I feel in this case is in discovering any intelligible principle underlying the decision of the full bench of this Court. The full bench did not proceed on the principle that as between atma) bandhus the right to succeed should be determined by giving preference to the paternal heirs over the maternal heirs. That I could have understood. But the Court recognised that in view of the earlier Privy Council decision in Vedachela Mudaliar v. Subramania Mudaliar (1921) L.R. 48 1. A. 349, s. c. 24 Bom. L.R. 649 they were bound to hold that in the first instance proximity of relationship was the governing principle.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Balasubramanya Pandya Thalaivar vs Subbaya Tevar on 3 December, 1937

23. A reference to the judgment delivered by Mr. Ameer Ali in Vedachela's case makes it clear that no such change over in the case of cognates was contemplated, and the rule above referred to, which was affirmed towards the end of the judgment, obviously does not make religious efficacy the only test among bandhus of the same class, though it does make it an admissible test, and it is perhaps worth noting that the view taken by the Subordinate Judge, to whose judgment their Lordships have referred and which was held to be well founded, was that the religious test was only applicable if the proximity test failed. The final conclusion at which the judgment of the Board then arrived is stated as follows (p. 364):-
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Sakharam Narayan Patvardhan vs Balkrishna Sadashiv Modak on 3 April, 1925

21. On the other hand on behalf of the defendant-respondent it is urged that propinquity is the only test for determining the question of preference among bandhus of the same class, that the maternal uncle being nearer from the mother's side than the father's sister's sons from the father's side the former should be preferred to the latter on the ground of nearer affinity. It is urged that in Vedachela Mudaliar v. Subramania Mudaliar (1921) L.R. 48 I.A. : S.C. 24 Bom. L.R. 649 the test really adopted is one of propinquity and that the test of spiritual benefit to the propositus cannot be considered as affording any safe guide in a case where one bandhu can offer oblations to the maternal ancestors of the deceased and the other can offer oblations to two paternal ancestors to whom the deceased could have offered oblations. Mr. Shingne did not argue-at least I did not understand him to argue-that the spiritual benefit conferred by the maternal uncle is greater than that conferred by the father's sister's son. Several decisions have been referred to in the course of the argument: but there is none directly bearing on the competition between the two particular bandhus, whose claims we have to consider.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next