Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Rayanmakanagath Kunhi Bivi Sheriff vs Cheriyapudiagath Abdul Aziz And Ors. on 12 September, 1882

Syed Ahamed Mohideen And Ors. And Syed ... vs Mohamed Zainulabudeen And Ors. on 17 November, 1981

The plaintiff has not proved the allegation in the plaint and there is no finding in his favour. No other mode of succession having been set up, and both parties conceding that the right of management descends according to the laws of inheritance the only question being whether it descends per capita or per stirpes, we are of opinion that succession must be governed by the Mohammedan Law of inheritance. See also the case of Kunhi Bivi v. Abdul Aziz (1883) I.L.R. 6 Mad. 103. The plaintiff is accordingly entitled to succeed to his father and the defendants are only entitled to take their father's share. This view is supported by the authoritites cited by Wallis, J.--Macnaughten, page 341; Wilson's Digest II Edition, 372; and Amir Ali, Volume I, page 426, 3rd Edition. The general statement in Macnaughten p. 336, that charitable donations should be distributed among the heirs of the departed saint is not applicable to the present case which is not a case of succession to the departed saint. We agree, therefore, with the learned Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 1 - S Mohan - Full Document

Orders Reserved On vs M.N.Abu Salih Sahib on 21 August, 2017

4. The plaintiff has not proved the allegation in the plaint and there is no finding in his favour. No other mode of succession having been set up, and both parties conceding that the right of management descends according to the laws of inheritance, the only question being whether it descends per capita or per stirpes, we are of opinion that succession must be governed by the Muhammadan law of inheritance. See also the case of Kunhi Bivi v. Abdul Aziz 6 M.k 103. The plaintiff is accordingly entitled to succeed his father and the defendants are only entitled to take their father's share. This view is supported by the authorities cited by Wallis, J., Macnaughten p. 341, Wilson's Digest, II Edition, 372, and Ameer Ali, Volume I, p. 426 (3rd Edition). The general statement in Macnaughten, p. 339, that charitable donations should be distributed among the heirs of the departed saint is not applicable to the present case which is not a case of succession to the departed saint.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - V M Velumani - Full Document

Syed Gaffur Saheb And Ors. vs Syed Moosa Saheb And Anr. on 16 September, 1912

4. The plaintiff has not proved the allegation in the plaint and there is no finding in his favour. No other mode of succession having been set up, and both parties conceding that the right of management descends according to the laws of inheritance, the only question being whether it descends per capita or per stirpes, we are of opinion that succession must be governed by the Muhammadan law of inheritance. See also the case of Kunhi Bivi v. Abdul Aziz 6 M. 103. The plaintiff is accordingly entitled to succeed his father and the defendants are only entitled to take their father's share. This view is supported by the authorities cited by Wallis, J., Macnaughten p. 341, Wilson's Digest, II Edition, 372, and Ameer Ali, Volume I, p. 426 (3rd Edition). The general statement in Macnaughten, p. 339, that charitable donations should be distributed among the heirs of the departed saint is not applicable to the present case which is not a case of succession to the departed saint.
Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1