Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.41 seconds)
Seerangamal (Died) And Ors. vs E.B. Venkatsubramanian And Ors. on 29 November, 1985 cites

M. Muthayya vs Kamu Alias Kamala Ammal And Ors. on 18 March, 1980

23. Regarding the contents of affidavit and written statement (i.e. items 4 and 5); being interested in the usufructuary mortgage, and being relations, they would not have tolerated in those years, a Naidu woman claiming status of the wife of a Brahmin. It is not as if that status could be derived, only if relations recognise. Outside world had treated her as wife, as found in notices by Bank (vide Exhibits A-31 and A-32), election records, Ration cards, etc., and in entries found in school records about plaintiffs 2 to 4. When he had himself recognised her as having lived with him as a devoted, sincere, faithful wife, and duration of cohabitation not being disputed; though the origin was in the nature of a concubinage; after the death of Bagirathi Ammal in 1940, for 15 long years Ranganatha had treated her as his wife, lived with her in the same house and three children were born to them and he had intended to confer upon them rights in the property. But unfortunately, as happens when entire legal aspects are not properly understood, the composition deed (Exhibit A-34) haying not brought forth what was aimed at when his brother was in difficulties; plaintiffs could not derive the advantage under Exhibit A-33 will. As held in Muthayya v. Kamu alias Kamala Ammal (1981) 94 L.W.I 93 multitude of materials exist to show that Society had treated her as wife of Ranganatha. The status acquired by long cohabitation cannot also be lost.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

Badri Prasad vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation And Ors on 1 August, 1978

10.In Badri Prasad v. Dy. Director, Consolidation , it is held that there would be a strong presumption arising in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for. a long spell as husband and wife, and such a presumption is rebuttable, and heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the relationship of legal origin, because law leans in favour of legitimacy and frowns upon bastardy.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 130 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Bikash Kumar Mukherjee And Ors. vs Smt. Nanda Rani Mukherjee And Ors. on 10 April, 1979

11-A, In a case wherein evidence in the form' of voter's list, ration card and School Register and treating a woman as wife and children born to them as his sons, living together for a long time, and factum ,of marriage in some form or other, was adduced it was' held by a Division Bench in Bikash Kumar v. Nanda Rani that the presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act deserves to be drawn.
Calcutta High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

Raghuvir Kumar (Minor) By Next Friend ... vs Smt. Shanmughavadivu And Ors. on 14 November, 1969

As for reliance placed on Raghuvir Kumar v. Smt. Shanmugavadivu he points out that oral and documentary evidence in abundance was available for Court to draw the presumption and that the secrecy maintained or certain inept expressions used by the girl, who claimed the status of a second wife did not outweigh the materials placed to show ,that there was long cohabitation and repute leading to conferment of status of a wife on her.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - Full Document

Jegannatham Pillai vs Kunjithapatham Pillai And Ors. on 20 September, 1971

26. Plaintiffs contend that under Exhibits A-34, A-64, A-74, A75 and Exhibits B-22 and B-23, Ranganatha having dealt with the suit property as his own property and first defendant having attested Exhibit A-74; they are entitled to the relief of declaration and possession of the suit property, based on Exhibit A-33. Jeganatham v. Kunjithapatham is relied upon to show that on 'attestation done by first defendant, he is stopped from disputing about the selfacquired nature of the property. This contention lacks substance, because the earlier decision in O.S. No. 279 of 1958 which culminated in S.A. No. 762 of 1979 would act as res judicata. The composition deed, which was marked as Exhibit B-5 therein and which is Exhibit A-34 herein, had been declared to be invalid and held as inadmissible in evidence, and when the property should be treated as joint family property which Ranganatha could not dispose of by execution of will (Exhibit A-33), plaintiffs are bound by the said decision.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 5 - V Ramaswami - Full Document

Kaliammal And Ors. vs Muthu Pillai Alias Perathambia Pillai ... on 3 April, 1963

A Division Bench of this Court in P.Kaliammal v. K. Pillai took into account the factor that a woman belongs to a caste which is very low in the social scale, and that a member of a respectable community would not incur the odium of contracting a marriage with such a person, is a circumstance to weaken or destroy the presumption under Section 114. It was held that public opinion might tolerate illicit union with her but. not treat her as wife because of long cohabitation between a man of high status and a woman of low social status. It was a case in which both of them had chosen not to adhere to morals in life.
Madras High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1