Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 22 (6.20 seconds)
Documents citing Thomas vs Thomas on 17 November, 1924

Perumal Naicker vs Sithalakshmi Ammal on 31 August, 1955

Papadopoulos v. Papadopoulos L.R. (1936) P. 108; with Spence v. Spence (1939) 1 All E.R. 52; the acts draw their significance from the purpose with which they are done as revealed, by conduct or other expressions' of intention, Thomas v. Thomas L.R. (1924) P. 194; and when the facts are in any manner equivocal the Court is required to draw from them inferences of their intent and purpose; if a state of separation de facto exists during the relevant period, the primary question is whether or not that separation is attributable to an animus deserendi on the part of the respondent; the existence of such an animus is a matter of inference from the facts of the case; Pardy v. Pardy L.R. (1939) P. 288, per Sir Wilfred Greene, M.R., at page 303, in cases where a continuing adulterous connection has been formed during separation the inference is simple: Basing v. Basing (1864) 3 Sw. & Tr. 516 : 164 E.R. 1375; Gatehouse v. Gatehouse (1867) L.R. 1 P. & D. 331; Pulford v. Pulford L.R. (1923) P. 18. For the act of desertion both the factum of separation and the animus deserendi are required.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Jamadar Mian And Anr. vs Amir Hassan And Ors. on 7 September, 1955

son enters into possession of property belonging to A person under disability, such as a miner or a lunatic, and the relationship of the parties and the circumstances of the case are such as would, in equity, fasten on the person so entering into possession, a trust actual or constructive, the possession of such person would be presumed to be that of a bailiff or agent of the person under disability, and not adverse to him. Thus, the possession of a de facto guardian would be presumed to be on behalf of the minor as his bailiff or guardian and not adverse to him as laid down in the cases of Thomas v. Thomas (1855) 110 R R 107 (M) and Ma Nagwe Naing v. Maung Tha Maung AIR 1929 PC 55 (Z8) as also in the cases of Ghulam Mohammad v. Ghulam Husain AIR 1932 PC 81 (Z9) and Howard v. Earl of Shrewsbury (1874) 43 LJ Ch. 495 (Z10).
Patna High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Katihar Jute Mills Ltd. vs Calcutta Match Works (India) Ltd. And ... on 13 July, 1957

And in saying this I am not unconscious that as a rule of practice, as laid down in Sarju Parshad v. Raja Jwaleshwari Pratap Narain Singh, 1950 SCR 781: (AIR 1951 SC 120) (A), certain presumption has to be given to the appreciation made by the trial Court as laid down in Veeraswami v. Narayya, AIR 1949 PC 32 (B); Bombay Cotton Manufacturing Company Ltd. v. Motilal Shivlal, 42 Ind App 110: (AIR 1915 PC 1) (C) and Watt or Thomas v. Thomas, 1947 AC 484 (D), but in this case, for the reasons already stated, the discussion made by the trial Court, apart from being perverse, is neither sufficient nor proper. Hence I am constrained to come to my own independent judgment.
Patna High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Veeraswami vs Narayya on 17 June, 1948

It found none of them conclusive and some of no value at all. Much may indeed be said for this view; but it is clear that the conclusion of fact reached by the Subordinate Judge was based primarily on the oral testimony and his estimate of the witnesses who all, it must be remembered, gave their evidence in his presence. That, as has been repeatedly pointed out, is an important consideration. The gist of the numerous decisions on the subject is clearly stated by Viscount Simon in Watt or Thomas v. Thomas [1947] A.C. 484 where he says (p. 486):
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next