Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.42 seconds)
Documents citing Thazhath Valappil Prasanth vs Kalliani And Ors. on 23 February, 2007

Narikalathil Lekshmi vs Palakeel Suneethi on 28 March, 2008

In Prasanth v. Kalliani (2007(2) KLT 992) a learned Judge of this Court held that in the case of wills when there is any inconsistency between earlier or subsequent part or specific clauses interse contained therein the subsequent part, clause or portion prevails over the earlier part because testator is competent to change his mind and create another bequest in the place of bequest already made.
Kerala High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Aravindakshi Amma vs Gopala Menon on 27 August, 2009

2006 (2) KLT 499). The position is the same where a Marumakkathayee male makes a gift in favour of his nephews or nieces eventhough there is no statutoy presumption in that behalf - See Tazhath Valappil A.S. No. 563 of 1999 and R.F.A. 43 of 2008 -:34:- Prasanth v. Kalliani and Others - 2007 (2) KLT 992. The statutory intervention in the from of Section 44 of the Travancore Nair Act corresponding to Sec. 74 of the Cochin Nair Act had not made any inroads into the rules of customary Marumakkathayam law which stands unaffected by the presumptions engrafted into the aforementioned enactments.
Kerala High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - V Ramkumar - Full Document

Punnasseri Narayanan Nair vs Punnasseri Girija & Others on 29 May, 2009

If there are two inconsistent and irreconcilable provisions in a Will, the latter has to prevail over the former. In this case one thing is certain particularly as the testator was making arrangements for inheritance of his properties on account of his old age, that he had the respective tavazhies of his nieces (whose mothers were then not alive more) also in his mind while he made the bequest as per Ext.B1. It is difficult to accept the contention that Ittirarichan Nair, the testator wanted to benefit the respective tavazhies only in case any of the three ladies died before his death. This Court has pointed out in Prasanth v. Kalliani (2007 (2) KLT 992) that the question whether the gift or bequest was to the donees individually or shall enure to the tavazhi is to be resolved on the intention of the donor or the testator.
Kerala High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - T Joseph - Full Document

Punnukkan Govindan vs Punnukkan Thambayi on 17 August, 2009

6. The questions whether the plaintiff is entitled to partition and allotment of = share of the plaint schedule property was considered by both courts elaborately and on an interpretation of Ext.A1 and other attended circumstances held that the plaintiff cannot claim partition any more. The findings of the courts below are based on facts, circumstances and probabilities. The learned counsel for the appellant cited [Kaivelikkal Ambunhi (dead) by L.Rs & others Vs. H.Ganesh Bhandary (AIR 1995 SC 2491)] [Thankamma Kunjamma and others Vs. Gopalakrishnan Unnithan & R.S.A.No.129 of 2009 6 others (1992 (1)KLJ 415)], [Prasanth Vs. Kalliani (2007(2) KLT 992)] and canvas the position that if there is any inconsistency between the earlier or subsequent part or specific clauses inter se contained therein, the earlier part will prevail over the latter part. Based on the said decisions it is contended that as far as interpretation of a Will is concerned, the subsequent part, clause or portion always prevail over the earlier part in the matter of "will" or portion because the testator can always change his mind and create another bequest in the place of the bequest already made in the earlier part or on earlier occasion. It was held in the decision cited supra that the last will of the testator shall prevail. The decisions cited and the principles stated therein are well settled and accepted principles. The said legal principles will apply to each and every case depending on the facts, circumstances and probabilities. If the intention of the testator to cancel the earlier portion and to bequest the property as contented by the plaintiff there is no difficulty in deleting the earlier portion. If there is a change of intention within a minute or so there is no difficulty in allotting the entire property to one sharer. In fact on a reading of Ext.A1 it is very clear that the plaintiff is take advantage of a mistake R.S.A.No.129 of 2009 7 committed while drafting Ext.A1 will. On a reading of Ext.A1 I am unable to notice any change of mind while drafting the will, that in the case of will the testator can always change his mind and create another will in the place of the bequest already made. I do not find the principles stated in the reported decisions cited is applicable to the case on hand. I have no reason to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the courts below. The appellants failed to make out any ground to invoke this court's jurisdiction under section 100 C.P.C. No question of law much less any substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. Hence, this appeal fails and accordingly dismissed in limine.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Harun-Ul-Rashid - Full Document

Court vs And

A reading of the decision in that case would show that it was a case where there was neither intention discernible from the document to show whether it was intended to give it to thavazhy nor there was any indication to show that the gift was to specified individuals therein. In that context, it was held that absence of any such recital would show that it is intended to benefit a particular person, it enures to the tavazhy.
Kerala High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document
1