Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.55 seconds)
Documents citing Chinna Palanisamy Gounder vs Latha on 16 December, 2016

Sumathi vs Chinnamal @ Ponnayal

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis/ S.A.No.1454 of 2008 “11. As rightly putforth by the plaintiff's counsel, considering the devolution of interest under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, it could be seen that the properties derived by the first defendant from his father could only be treated as his separate properties and not as the joint family properties of the first defendant and the defendants 2 & 3 and in this connection, this Court had an occasion to dealwith the above issue in other cases and the said cases had been reported in (2017) 1 MLJ 759 (Chinna Palanisamy Gounder Vs. Latha and others) and (2017)-2-L.W.343 (M.Palaniappan & another Vs. Nachimuthu) and the position of law has been outlined in the decision second referred to as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document

K.S.Senthilkumar vs A.Seeralan on 20 April, 2018

13. In the trial Court, a challenge has been made as regards the sale transaction marked as Ex.A2 on the footing that the same has come to be effected without obtaining the permission of the Court despite the minors' interest involved thereunder. However, as rightly determined by the first appellate Court, considering the nature of the suit property being the joint family property in which the plaintiffs have only undivided interest,, accordingly, it is found that considering the decision reported in (2017) 1 MLJ 759 (Chinna Palanisamy Gounder Vs. Latha and others), wherein the point of law on the abovesaid issue has been discussed as follows:-
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document

Padmavathi Ammal vs Natarajan

11. As rightly putforth by the plaintiff's counsel, considering the devolution of interest under Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act 1956, it could be seen that the properties derived by the first defendant from his father could only be treated as his separate properties and not as the joint family properties of the first defendant and the defendants 2 & 3 and in this connection, this Court had an occasion to dealwith the above issue in other cases and the said cases had been reported in (2017) 1 MLJ 759 (Chinna Palanisamy Gounder Vs. Latha and others) and (2017)-2-L.W.343 (M.Palaniappan & another Vs. Nachimuthu) and the position of law has been outlined in the decision second referred to as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document

A.Seenivasan vs S.Navaneetha Krishnan (Died) ....1St on 25 June, 2025

22.The learned Senior Counsel had further submitted that though certain allegations have been made as against the father relating to his character, no evidence has been let in. He relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in a judgment reported in 1970 (3) SCC 350 (Raj Kumar Gaghubanchmani Prasad Narain Singh Vs. Ambica Prasad Singh (dead) by Lawyers and others); 2016 SAR (Civil) 161(Rajni Sanghi Vs. Wester Indian State Motors Ltd., & Others) and (2017) 1 MLJ 759 (Chinna Palanisamy Gounder Vs. Latha and others) in support of his contention.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - R Vijayakumar - Full Document

Samandhi vs Arumugam on 18 April, 2017

In yet another judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the respondents 2 and 3, reported in 2017 (1) MLJ 759 = LNIND 2016 MAD 3634 (Chinna Palanisamy Gounder Vs. Latha), this Court held that as per the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, considering the devolution of interest under Section 8 of the said Act amongst the Class-I heirs, the property derived from the deceased, would only be treated as a separate property and not as a joint family property. The relevant portion of the said judgment reported in 2017 (1) MLJ 759 (cited supra), reads as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 4 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document

Vijaya vs Kuppusamy on 29 January, 2020

15. The Trial Court relying on the judgment of this Court in the case of Chinna Palanisamy Gounder vs. Latha and Others [LNIND 2016 Mad 3634] held that once a Partition Deed is effected in respect of the family properties and the first defendant got an absolute right in respect of the suit mentioned properties, then the said properties cannot be subjected to partition during the lifetime of the first defendant. The relevant portion of the abovesaid judgment of this Court, relied on by the Trial Court, is extracted hereunder:-
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - S M Subramaniam - Full Document

Parasuraman vs Sekar on 6 August, 2018

Further, it could be seen that Maari had four wives and out of love and affection, he had settled certain properties in favour of his fourth wife Jothimani and the settlement deed has been marked as Ex.B4. Thus, it is found that Maari had been owning separate properties and had been dealing with the same as his own and it is thus found that there is no proof whatsoever placed to hold that any of the suit properties belonged to Maari ancestrally. Thus, it is found that the properties owned by Maari as could be seen from the available materials, are only his separate properties and accordingly, he had dealt with the same as above noted. Further, even assuming for the sake of arguments that the first defendant had inherited the separate properties of Maari, after his demise, the said suit properties would come into the hands of the first defendant only as his independent properties and not as the joint family properties of the first defendant and the plaintiff, as such, vide the decisions reported in AIR 1979 MADRAS 1 (The Additional Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras-1 V. P.L.Karuppan Chettiar), 1993 Supp (1) Supreme Court Cases 580 (Commissioner of Income Tax V. P.L.Karuppan Chettiar), (1986) 3 Supreme Court Cases 567 (Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Kanpur and Others V. Chander Sen And Others), (2008) 3 Supreme Court Cases 87 (Bhanwar Singh V. Puran And Others) and the latest decision (2016) 4 Supreme Court Cases 68 (Uttam V. Saubhag Singh and Others), (2017) 1 MLJ 759 (Chinna Palanisamy Gounder Vs. Latha and others) and (2017)-2-L.W.343 (M.Palaniappan & another Vs. Nachimuthu). Accordingly, it is found that the plaintiff without any basis has come forward with the case as if the suit properties are the joint family properties of the first defendant and the plaintiff and that the plaintiff is entitled to half share in the same. When the abovesaid case of the plaintiff has been disputed vehemently and despite the same, the plaintiff having not placed any material to hold that Maari owned the suit properties ancestrally and the first defendant had acquired the same through his father, etc., and on the other hand, the available materials would go to show that Maari and the first defendant had been dealing with their separate properties as per their volition, it is found that, as rightly determined by the trial Court, the plaintiff has miserably failed to establish that the suit properties are available for partition on the date of the suit and in such view of the matter, it is found that the plaintiff's suit has to fail.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document
1