Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.95 seconds)
Mookka Kone Alias Vannia Kone And Ors. vs Ammakutti Alias Vannichi Ammal And Anr. on 8 February, 1927 cites

Ganesh Dutt Thakoor vs Jewach Thakoorain on 12 November, 1903

27. I shall now, deal with instances adduced to show that females did not succeed to a divided member who died without male issue. As regards cases where the only evidence is that the parties were living separately and nothing further appears I do not think I can draw the presumption that they were living separately because of a partition. Unless there is something to show that there was a partition, separate living may be due to several causes, for example, convenience, and does not necessarily import a division. I need, only refer to Ganesh Dutt Thakoor v. Jewach Thakoorain 31 C. 262; 31 I. A. 10; 8 C. W. N. 146; 14 M. L. J. 8; 6 Bom. L. R. 1; 8 Sar. P. C. J. 575 (P. C.)
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 28 - Full Document

Sinnanna Kone And Ors. vs Muthupalani Chetti And Anr. on 17 April, 1925

13. I may point out that in the present case the parties and the witnesses give their religion as Vaishnavite, their caste as Yadhava and it is not suggested that they do not follow the Hindu religion. I may also point out that defendants' forty-sixth witness Ayya Kone who belongs to the 1000 Yadhavas community states that at the time of the annual ceremony he would mention the names of his father, grand father, and great-grandfather and that, when his father performed sraah ceremonies, he used to mention the names of his ancestors. So that this community performs sradh ceremonies to the deceased ancestors which forms an important basis in the Hindu Law of Inheritance. It is not suggested that, though the Yadhava community is a large community in Southern India and although ethnologically the sub-sect to which the parties belong, namely, the Madura Ramayana Chavadi 1,000 Yadhavas, is not different from the other Yadhavas in Madura, Ramnad and Tinnevelly Districts, other Yadhavas adopt the custom as to succession now set up What is sought to be proved is that this sub-sect confined to about 700 families in the Madura Town and surrounding villages follow the rule of exclusion of females. I may state that another section of the Yadhavas tried to setup the rule of exclusion of females but this was negatived in both the lower courts and was confirmed in the High Court in Sinnana Kone v. Muthupalani Chetti 92 Ind. Cas. 352; A. I. R. 1926 Mad. 378. There is nothing to show that the Yadhava community has its own self contained written system of inheritance to which recourse is to be had in dealing with such questions. According to the brother's sons of the deceased (defendants Nos. 1 to 3) and the half-brother of the deceased (4th defendant), the Hindu Law is applicable except in so far as they say it has been modified by the custom of the caste. The 4th defendant, would have it that the rule of Hindu Law that nearer agnates would exclude the ones more remote is applicable to the parties, While this is denied by defendants Nos. 1 to 3.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1