Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.30 seconds)
Rajah Velugoti Kumara Krishna ... vs Rajah Velugoti Sarvagna Kumara ... on 28 October, 1969 cites

His Highness Sri Sri Sri Lieut-Col. Sir ... vs Raja Rajeswara Rao And Anr. on 10 February, 1939

The Subordinate Judge, Nellore held in O.S. No. 30 of 1932 that plaintiffs 5 and 6 were not the Purusha Santhathi of Venugopal. The decision was affirmed, by the High Court in Maharajah of Venkatagiri v. Raja Rajeswara Rao(1) and on appeal against the judgment of the High Court was dismissed by the Judicial Committee. That decision is binding upon the plaintiffs 5 and 6 on the ground of res judicata. The seventh plaintiff as the son of the 5th plaintiff can claim no higher rights than the 5th plaintiff. It was contended that plaintiffs 5 to 7 were entitled to claim that I L.R. 1933 Mad. 622.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 23 - Full Document

Sri Raja Satrucheria Veerabhadra Raju ... vs Gauta Kumari Naidu And Ors. on 2 January, 1912

Out of the sons of the said Sri Raja Velugoti Kumara Yachama Naidu, excluding the three .... who, have been given in adoption .... while we remaining four brothers comprising the parties to this document are sons of the said Raja V. Kumara Yachama Naidu and members of an undivided family; because the Venkatagiri Estate is impartible and subject to the law of Primogeniture our father Sri Raja V. Kumara Yachama Naidu, with the intention of his seeing, and approving of, the ruling of the estate by his eldest son the Raja Rajagopala Krishna, and with the intention of passing his time thereafter in future in the meditation of God, as means to attain to the world beyond, transferred on the 28th October, 1878 to the eldest of us four and the heir apparent to the estate, namely, the 97 Raja Rajagopala Krishna, Raja of Venkatagiri, the Venkatagiri Zamindari, the immovable Properties relating thereto, the other immovable properties which were acquired, by means of the income of the said Zamindari and all his ancestral and his self acquired movable properties, excepting the nine lakhs and odd rupees and all the properties connected therewith including its accretions which he retained for his charitable expenses. Since, then, the aforesaid Raja Rajagopala Krishna Yachandra, Raja of Venkatagiri, has, been ruling the estate...... When the matters stood thus, on account of ill-feeling that arose between some of us, two of us, namely Muddukrishna Yachendrulu and Venkata Krishna Yachendrulu, expressed the desire that the said Venkatagiri Zamindari, the immovable properties connected therewith, the other immovable properties acquired by means of the income of the said Venkatagiri Zamindari and all the movable properties should be divided into four shares and their respective shares should be given to them. The Raja Rajagopala- krishna, Raja of Venkatagiri, becoming aware of this fact, contended that the Venkatagiri Zamindari, the other immovable properties connected therewith, the other immovable properties which were acquired by his father out of the income of that Zamindari and trans- ferred by him to him alongwith the estate and ancestral and sell acquired movable properties of his father which the latter transferred to him alongwith the estate, were impartible. "Thereupon, all of us brothers consulted about the aforementioned points of dispute, our father who is all-knowing and who has considerable experience. He considered it well and positively expressed his opinion that, regard to immovable property the Venkatagiri Zamindari was originally earned by our ancestors by reason; of velour in war, that it was an ancient Zamindari, that it was an impartible estate devolving along the eldest line of descendants, that it was permanently settled, that, when Sannad Milikiyat Istimirar was granted to the ancestors, who was then the Zamindar of Venkatagiri, the peshkush for this Venkatagiri Estate was fixed with reference to the amount of expenses of the military troops and servants which he (our ancestor) was supplying and with reference to the money paid as tribute to the former Government, namely, Nawab, that therefore this Venkatagiri estate was not partible, that the immovable properties connected therewith, and other immovable properties acquired by means of the income of the said estate were also, of 98 course, impartible-that, in regard to movable property, his ancestral and self-acquired money in cash, the money consisting of deposits kept in the firms of Arbuthnot & Co., and Binny & Co., all the silver, gold and precious stones, jewels, which were on the 26th October, 18'/8 transferred along with the said Venkatagiri Estate to this eldest son, the Raja Rajagopala Krishna, Raja of Venkatagiri, together with the accretions thereto upto now should be divided equally ;among his four sons who are among the parties to this document-that such would be a just arrangement. In regard to our father's opinion _about the - immovable property, the three youngest of us brothers consulted their proper friends and in regard to our father's opinion about the aforementioned movable properties which were acquired by Raja Velugoti Kumara Yachama and transferred along with the Venkatagiri Estate, the eldest of these four brothers, . . . consulted his proper friends. On account of the cogent reasons urged by the respective friends of these both parties, and for the reasons urged by the respective friends of these both parties, and for the reason that all family feuds would (thereby) end and compromised the opinions of one of the parties to this document, namely, Raja Velugoti Kumara Yachama Naidu, on the two points referred to above hAve been agreed in, as certainly correct and accepted, by the remaining parties, namely, we four brothers. Therefore, the parties to this document, namely, we four brothers, and our father Raja Velugoti Kumara Yachama do now jointly and severally hereby determine, agree and affirm as follows "All this Venkatagiri Estate is impartible descendible along the eldest line (of descent) of the said Estate, the immovable properties connected therewith and the other immovable properties acquired by means of the income of the said estate should be enjoyed by the eldest of us four brothers and the heir of the aforesaid Raja Velugoti Kumara Yachama namely the aforesaid Velugoti Rajagopala Krishna and after him by his son, son's son and so on in the eldest male line of descent...... subject to the condition of paying allowances to other members of our family, suitably to their respective status out of the income from the estate and the properties. And so we divide in the manner shown below all the money, silver, gold and precious stones, jewels and the accretions resulting thereto upto 99 this day which formed ancestral and self acquisition of our father...... along with the said estate......"
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Nand Kishore Rai And Anr. vs Mst. Bhagi Kuer And Ors. on 30 August, 1957

any particular law ceases, so does the law itself). It is not possible to accept this principle in the present case. For, many times custom outlives the condition of things which give it birth. As observed by Lord Atkinson in Rai Kishore Singh v. Mst. Gahenabai(1) It is difficult to see why a family should not similarly agree expressly or impliedly to continue to observe a custom necessitated by the condition of things existing in primitive times after that condition had completely al- tered. Therefore, the principle embodied in the expression 'cessat ratio cessat lex' does not apply where the custom outlives the condition of things which gave it birth." We accordingly reject the contention of the plaintiff on this aspect of the case.
Allahabad High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 29 - Full Document
1   2 Next