Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 27 (0.74 seconds)
Documents citing S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs Suruttayan Alias Andali Padayachi And ... on 29 November, 1991

G.Srinivas vs M.Swaminathan on 9 July, 2019

42. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parayankandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma and others Vs. K.Devi and others reported in 1996 (4) SCC 76 as well as in S.P.S.Balasubramanyam Vs. Suruttayan Alias Andali Padayachi and others reported in 1994 (1) SCC 460 had concluded that a second marriage could be presumed and children born out of such long cohabitation would also be entitled to benefits of Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act. I am therefore of the considered opinion that the applicant had established that there was a marriage between the 2nd applicant and late G.Ramakrishna and the 1st applicant was born out of the said wedlock.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - R Subramanian - Full Document

Gurijala Savithri And Ors. vs Gurijala Venkateswara Rao And Ors. on 27 April, 2006

11. The contention of Sri Movva Chandra Sekhar Rao, learned Counsel for the plaintiffs, is that since the voluminous documentary and oral evidence adduced by the plaintiffs shows that 1st plaintiff and the deceased were living as husband and wife and since the deceased acknowledged the paternity of plaintiffs 2 and 3 while admitting them in school and making deposits in banks in their names, and claimed himself to be the husband of the 1st plaintiff while admitting her in hospital and signed the consent declaration for the operation of the 1st plaintiff and had also made deposits in her name in bank and purchased jewellery for her as her husband and since Ex.A. 29 voters list also shows that the deceased and the 1st plaintiff lived in the same house as husband and wife, it is easy to see that there was a marriage between them. Relying on Smt. Nirmala and Ors. v. Smt. Rukminibai and Ors. , S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan @ Andali Padayachi , S.P.S. Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan @ Andali Padayachi , Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali and Anr. v. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni and Anr. and Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Ors. , he contended that a presumption of valid marriage between the 1st plaintiff and the deceased can be drawn on the basis of the above evidence.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Naresh Kumar Thorugh His Lrs. Amita And ... vs Charanpreet Kaur And Ors on 27 May, 2020

Plaintiffs have proved their case on the basis of preponderance of probabilities and on the basis of concurrent findings of fact on the aspect of plaintiffs No.2 and 3 being sons of Sushil Kumar. These findings are based on voluminous documentary record, majority of which has been prepared prior to the death of Sushil Kumar. Some of the documents are prepared after the death of Sushil Kumar. Learned counsel referred to Hero Vinoth (minor) Vs. Seshammal, 2006(2) RCR (Civil) 677, Govindaraju Vs. Mariamman, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 105, Sheel Chand Vs. Prakash Chand, 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 446, Bharatha Matha and another Vs. R. Vijaya Renganathan and others, 2010(3) RCR (Civil) 252, S.P.S. Balasubhramaniyam's case (supra), Smt. Parayankandiyal Vs. K. Devi and others, Manu/SC/0487/1996, Jinia Keotin and others Vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and others, 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 469, Rameshwari Devi's case (Supra), RSA No.52 of 2018 titled Jagdish Chand Vs. Piar Singh and others decided on 07.05.2018, Bachhaj Nahar Vs. Nilima Mandal and another, AIR 2009 SCC 1103, RSA No.2155 of 2006 titled Sheela 22 of 30 ::: Downloaded on - 27-05-2020 22:13:44 ::: RSA Nos.1163 and 1982 of 2015(O&M) 23 Rani Vs. Tarlok Chand decided on 11.08.2009, J. Naval Kishore Vs. D. Swarna Bhadran, 2007(6) RCR (Civil) 599 and S.R. Srinivasa and others Vs. P. Padmavthamma, 2010(4) ALD 160(SC) in support of their contentions.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - R M Singh - Full Document

P.Sanjeeva Reddy vs P.Lakshmi Devi on 2 August, 2022

39. The learned counsel for the 2nd respondent has also relied on the judgments of Apex Court and this Court in Tulsa v. Durghatiya8, in Challamma v. Tilaga & others9, in Shobha Hymavathi Devi v. Setti Gangadhara Swamy & others10, in Jannu Rama Goud v. Commissioner of Prohibition and Excise, A.P., Hyderabad11, in Ranganath Parameshwar Panditrao Mali & others v. Ekanth Gajanan Kulkarni & others12, in Chowdegowda @ Dorji & others v. C.Nagaraju & others13, in SPS Bakasubramanyam v. Suruttayan @ Andhali Padayachiand & others14, in Kondamma v. Joint Collector, 8 (2008) 4 SCC 520 9 (2009) 9 SCC 299 10 (2005) 2 SCC 244 11 2004 ALD (NOC) 39 12 AIR 1996 SC 1290 13 AIR 1996 SC 3485 14 AIR 1994 SC 133 33 GAC, J CCCA.No.207 of 2001 Anantapur15, in Bardi Prasad v. Dy.Director of Consolidation & others16 and in Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumar17, wherein, it is held that long cohabitation gives rise to presumption of marriage, only when there is no rebuttal and protest from the close relatives. Admittedly, the defendant is disputing the relationship between the plaintiff and his father Late P.Ramchandra Reddy. Sections 50 and 114 of the Evidence Act need to be given importance, as the conduct of the parties with each other is important and that onus falls on the party to prove that relationship of husband and wife existed.
Telangana High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Shanmugha Udayar vs Sivanandam And Others on 18 March, 1993

In Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan, the Supreme Court has laid down that when a man and woman continuosly lived together under the same root and cohabited for a number of years, presumption that they lived as husband and wife arises. So we have no hesitation in drawing the presumption that there was a valid marriage between the appellant and the 9th defendant. As a necessary corollary it follows that the 18th defendant is their legitimate daughter.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

M. Shanmugha Udayar vs Sivanandam And Ors. on 18 March, 1993

In Balasubramanyam v. Suruttayan , the Supreme Court has laid down that when a man and woman continuously lived together under the same roof and cohabited for a number of years, presumption that they lived as husband and wife arises. So we have no hesitation in drawing the presumption that there was a valid marriage between the appellant and the 9th defendant. As a necessary corollary it follows that the 10th defendant is their legitimate daughter.
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Sobha Hymavathi Devi vs Setti Gangadhara Swamy & Ors on 28 January, 2005

The arising of a presumption, though rebuttable, has also been noticed by this Court in S.P.S. Balasubramanyam vs. Suruttayan Alias Andalipadayachi and others., (1994) 1 SCC 460, and in Ranganath Parmeshwar Panditrao Mali and another vs. Eknath Gajanan Kulkarni and another, (1996) 7 SCC 681. We may also incidentally notice that even assuming that there was any earlier marriage between Simhachalam, the mother of the appellant and Ladda Appala Swamy at a time when Simhachalam was allegedly eight years old, the same also can be presumed to have been terminated especially in the context of the subsequent long cohabitation of Murahari Rao and Simhachalam and the evidence on the side of the appellant herself that the alleged marriage between Simhachalam and Ladda Appala Swamy was when Simhachalam was eight years old; that the said marriage was never consummated and that Simhachalam had left Ladda Appala Swamy immediately after marriage and had never lived with him. It is undisputed that divorce was permitted in the community.
Supreme Court of India Cites 11 - Cited by 73 - P K Balasubramanyan - Full Document

Jayammal vs V.Kumar on 2 July, 2008

In the decision reported in S.P.S.BALASUBRAMANYAM v. SURUTTAYAN, AIR 1992 SC 756 the Supreme Court held that the circumstances of evidence in that case did not destroy the presumption that the parties therein lived as man and wife under the same roof. In this case also, there is undeniable evidence that Natarajan and the first appellant had lived as man and wife under the same roof. Therefore, the children born to them are not illegitimate and the provisions of Section 16 of the Hindu Marriage Act will be applicable to them.
Madras High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 3 - G Rajasuria - Full Document
1   2 3 Next