Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Konduru Dasaratharama Reddi And Ors. vs Indoor Narasa Reddi And Ors. on 11 November, 1927

P.R. Nallathambi Goundan vs Vijaya Raghavan And Ors. on 23 March, 1972

In Dasaratharama Reddi v. Narasa Reddi (1928) I.L.R. 51 Mad. 494, a release by the managing member, of a joint family, of a substantial portion of a mortgage debt due to the family merely out of charity or sympathy with the mortgagor was held to be not binding on the other members of the family as the transact ion was not prudent and constituted virtually a waiver and relinquishment of valuable property rights of the family. It is settled law that like the managing member of the joint family, a Hindu widow could enter into a bona fide compromise with a third party and that it would be binding upon the reversioner. Though the widow is not a trustee for the reversioners and she has succeeded to the estate as an heir, and is in enjoyment of the properties as an owner thereof, the same limitations are imposed upon her power to compromise. The Privy Council has pointed out that in judging the validity and the binding nature of a compromise entered into by the widow, the same tests as would apply to the case of an alienation would be applied.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

P.R. Nallathambi Goundan vs Vijaya Raghavan And Ors. on 28 March, 1972

In Dasaratharama Reddi v, Narasa Reddi. ILR 51 Mad 484 = (AIR 1928 Mad 601) a release by the managing member of a joint family, of a substantial portion of a mortgage debt due to the family merely out of charity or sympathy with the mortgagor was held to be not binding on the other members of the family as the transaction was not prudent and constituted virtually a waiver and relinquishment of valuable property rights of the family. It is settled law that like the managing member of the joint family, a Hindu widow could enter in to a bona fide compromise with a third party and that it would be binding upon the reversioner. Though the widow is not a trustee for the reversioners and she has succeeded to the estate as an heir, and is in enjoyment of the properties as an owner thereof, the same limitations are imposed upon her power to compromise. The Privy Council has pointed out in judging the validity and the binding nature of a compromise entered into by the widow, the same tests as would apply to the case of an alienation would be applied. (vide the statement of the law in Mullah's Hindu Law, 13 th Edn.
Madras High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Pentapati Venkataramana And Ors. vs Pentapati Varahalu And Ors. on 22 September, 1938

16. The learned Subordinate Judge has declined to give to plaintiff and defendants 24 to 27 a decree even for the amounts due as per the terms of Exs. 4 and 5. We have already indicated that he was not justified in so doing. The result is that the plaintiff for himself and for defendants 24 to 27, who have now been transposed as co-plaintiffs, will be entitled to recover the amounts due to their branch as per the terms of Exs. 4 and 5 and the additional amount of Rs. 3500 we have referred to above. They will also be entitled to whatever may be found to be payable in respect of the three-sixteenths share of this branch on the taking of accounts relating to Kottu No. 3. So far as the amounts payable under Exs. 4 and 5 are concerned, the amounts were tendered but not accepted by defendant 24. There is accordingly no justification for allowing any interest in respect of those amounts; but in respect of the additional amount of Rs. 3500 allowed by us, the plaintiff will be entitled to interest at 6 per cent, from date of plaint till date of payment. The amounts due under Exs. 4 and 5 will carry interest at 6 per cent, from the date of the lower Court's decree.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1