Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.72 seconds)
Documents citing Lakshmi Ammal vs Meenakshi Ammal And Ors. on 25 March, 1974

Shivraj Reddy And Brothers And Anr. vs S. Raghuraj Reddy And Ors. on 19 October, 2001

10. Since it is the specific case of the plaintiff that he is only a partner in the two firms covered by suits, and since it is NOT his case that those businesses are being carried on by him and his brother Shiva Raj Reddy as members of the joint family or as a joint family businesses, and hence is entitled to a share therein as a co-parcener, the ratio in MUDI GOWDA (1 supra), APPALASWAMI (2 supra), NARAYANA RAJU (3 supra), LAKSHMI (4 supra), SAYED ABDUL MAJID (5 supra), NAN CHAND GANGARAM (6 supra), SHANMUKESWARA RAO (7 supra), SATCHIDANANDA SAMANTA (8 supra), KENCHE GOWDA (9 supra) and M.L.ARYA MURTHY (10 supra) does not apply to the facts of this case, and those decisions have little relevance for deciding these appeals and the question as to whether the joint family of the plaintiff, Shiva Raj Reddy and their brothers has any property or income fetching property and if suit for partition is a suit for partial partition are wholly irrelevant for deciding these appeals.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

M. Saminatha Vellalar vs Govindaraju, Thambi Ayyan, Natarajan, ... on 2 July, 2002

In Lakshmi v. Meenakshi , a Division Bench of this Court following the dictum of the Supreme Court in Srinivas Krishnarao v. Narayana Devji , has held that mere existence of ancestral property is not enough to conclude that the business carried on by a member was not joint family business. There must be proof that the ancestral property was sufficient and productive enough and the income from the property was utilized for the purpose of the business.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

N.Dharmalingam vs N.Ayyavoo [Died on 11 October, 2022

''18.....As per the finding given by the trial court https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 33 AS.No.643/2008 & CRP.No.1962/2013 there are no two opinions that Peerappa was the main person who held various agricultural lands and out of that certain business started. But the case of Defendants 1 to 3 was that the properties acquired by them were out of their own earnings and not out of the joint family nucleus. The trial court has found that no evidence has been produced by the defendants to substantiate that Defendants 2 and 3 i.e. wife and son of Defendant 1 had individual source to purchase the aforesaid properties. Therefore, the learned trial Judge has held against them. But the High Court has reversed that finding. We fail to see any justifiable reason for the High Court to have taken a contrary view in the matter. The trial court in extensive manner dealt with each subject and came to the conclusion that the properties acquired by Defendants 1 to 3 were not self-acquired properties as neither Defendant 2 nor Defendant 3 i.e. the mother and son had any independent source of income for purchasing these properties.'' (30) In Lakshmi Ammal Vs. Meenakshi Ammal and Others , reported in AIR 1974 Mad 294, a Division Bench of this Court has https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis 34 AS.No.643/2008 & CRP.No.1962/2013 reiterated the same principle and held that there must be proof that the ancestral property was sufficient and productive enough and the income from the property was utilized for the purpose of the business and also held that the property acquired or the business acquired was ancestral property or business property.
Madras High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 0 - S S Sundar - Full Document

Ramanujam And Ors. vs V. Manickam And Ors. on 11 November, 1976

In a recent decision in Lakshmi v. Meenakshi , a Division Bench of this Court to which I was a party has expressed the view that there is no presumption in Hindu Law that a business standing in the name of member of a Hindu family is joint family business even when that member is the manager or father and that unless it could be shown that the business in the hands of the co-parcener grew up with the assistance of the joint family or with the joint family funds, the business should be taken to be the separate property of the member who is carrying on the same.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1