Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Arakkal Rohini And Anr. vs Arakkal Koottappanakkal A.K. ... on 31 January, 1978 cites

Balakrishnan And Ors. vs Chittoor Bank And Ors. on 27 March, 1936

In Balakrishnan v. Chittoor Bank, (AIR 1936 Mad 937), the question arose whether among the Ezhava community of Palghat though they follow Makatayam Law and not Marumakatayam Law, the sons are liable for the debts of their father not incurred for illegal or immoral purposes irrespective of any question of family necessity. It was held by Varadachariar J., that the sons were so liable and it was observed that there was no warrant for introducing one portion of the Hindu Law in governing a certain community without taking along with it the other portions which form an integral part of the whole system"
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Kunhi Pennu vs Chiruda on 17 August, 1896

"We think the Makkathayam Thiyyas are governed by, what is called the customary law and that when a question arises as to what is the rule of law governing them on any particular matter, what we have to see is what is the rule of customary law obtaining amongst them in that matter and in cases which are not sufficiently governed by prior decisions, the question will have to Be determined with reference to the evidence in case. Vide Rarichan v. Parachi (1892) ILR 15 Mad 281, Raman Menon v. Chatunni (1894) ILR 17 Mad 184, Kunhi Pennu v. Chiruda (1896) ILR 19 Mad 440 in each of which a specific issue was raised as to what is the rule of the customary law on the particular question at issue and the Lower Court was asked to submit a finding after taking fresh evidence on it. See also Imbichi Kandan v. Imbachi Pennu (1896) ILR 19 Mad 1 where the learned Judges observe that the Sub ordinate Judge was right in laying down that the question for decision was whether according to the law and custom followed by Makkathayam Thiyyas of Calicut, property of a deceased person.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Imbichi Kandan And Ors. vs Imbichi Pennu And Ors. on 21 August, 1895

"We think the Makkathayam Thiyyas are governed by, what is called the customary law and that when a question arises as to what is the rule of law governing them on any particular matter, what we have to see is what is the rule of customary law obtaining amongst them in that matter and in cases which are not sufficiently governed by prior decisions, the question will have to Be determined with reference to the evidence in case. Vide Rarichan v. Parachi (1892) ILR 15 Mad 281, Raman Menon v. Chatunni (1894) ILR 17 Mad 184, Kunhi Pennu v. Chiruda (1896) ILR 19 Mad 440 in each of which a specific issue was raised as to what is the rule of the customary law on the particular question at issue and the Lower Court was asked to submit a finding after taking fresh evidence on it. See also Imbichi Kandan v. Imbachi Pennu (1896) ILR 19 Mad 1 where the learned Judges observe that the Sub ordinate Judge was right in laying down that the question for decision was whether according to the law and custom followed by Makkathayam Thiyyas of Calicut, property of a deceased person.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Lalta Prasad And Ors. vs Gajadhar Shukul And Ors. on 23 December, 1932

16. In 12 Cochin 213 Narayana Menon J-, said that "the rule as to the pious liability is closely connected with and is almost correlative to the rule relating to the right by birth" and that it will be "unreasonable to disassociate the two" in the matter of their applicability. To the same effect is Lalta Prasad v. Gajadhar Shukul, AIR 1933 All 235 wherein Iqbal Ahmad, J., said:
Allahabad High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

(Parambarathil) Pattukkayal Chakutti ... vs Kothembra Chandukutti on 17 March, 1927

7. The main question is whether the transactions Exts. B-5 and B-13 can be said to be binding on the plaintiffs on the basis of the Hindu Law Doctrine of pious obligation. The law applicable to the Thiyyas of Calicut is essentially customary law. The burden is on the party setting up any particular rule of custom to prove the same. In the absence of proof of custom the Hindu Mithakshara Law will be presumed to apply. This was laid down in several decisions of the Madras High Court, of which it would be enough to notice the decision in Pattukkayal Chakutti v. Kothembra Chandukutty (AIR 1927 Mad 877). There it is observed (at p. 878):
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Kanara Kurup vs Govinda Kurup on 12 April, 1892

In Rama Kurup v. Kochu Govinda Kurup (31 Cochin 247) the question that fell for decision was the law applicable to the Kaniyans. It was held that it was the same as the law governing the Makkathayi Ezhavas and that the sons do not acquire any right by birth in the property so as to disentitle the father alone to alienate it in the absence of family necessity. Discussing the question it was observed:
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Haji Ebrahim Haji Jamal Noor Mohd. And ... vs V. Balakrishnan And Anr. on 20 January, 1960

In Dharmodayum Company v. Balakrishnan (1962 Ker LT 712) a Division Bench of this Court approved the principle in AIR 1927 Mad 877 and AIR 1940 Mad 67 and held that the evidence did not justify that the custom of impartibility had been proved to exist in the community. Discussing the applicability of the doctrine of pious obligation, the Division Bench recorded its entire agreement with the conclusion of the trial Judge that the applicability of the doctrine to Thiyyas as a matter of custom had not been proved. Having endorsed this finding, the learned Judges observed:
Orissa High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1