Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.62 seconds)Section 14 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 129 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
Nammalwar And Ors. vs Appavu Udayar And Ors. on 11 July, 1959
11. Reference may next be made to the Bench decision of this Court in Nammalwar v. Appavu Udayar, , where too, Section 130 of the Succession Act was applied.
Mrs. Shirinbai Maneckshaw & Others vs Nargacebai J. Motishaw & Others on 9 May, 1956
The decision of the Supreme Court in Mrs. Shirinbal Manekshaw v. Nargacebal Motishaw, was distinguished as turning upon the particular terms of the will. In , the testator executed a will and a codicil by which he directed that his three wives should after his lifetime take the A and B schedule properties specified in the will for their lives without powers of alienation, that the wives should maintain the daughters, get them married, keep the sons-in-law in the family, and that if any of his daughters should beget male heir all the properties of the testator should belong to that male heir. The will further provided that in case no male heir was born to any of his daughters all the properties of the testator should go to the charity. The testator died in 1902 and a grandson through a daughter who was the second defendant in the action was born ten years later in 1912. The bequest in favour of the grand-son was invalid in law as being a gift in favour of an unborn child. The representatives of the charity brought a suit for a declaration that even though the prior bequest failed for a different reason, the disposition over, took effect under the rule in Section 129 of the Succession Act. The Bench did not accept this contention but held that Section 130 only applied. The Bench pointed out that the gifts in favour of the grand-son and in favour of the charity were not independent gifts, nor even could be considered as substitutional gifts, but that on the terms of the will, the bequest in favour of the charity was clearly a conditional gift.
Section 130 in The Indian Succession Act, 1925 [Entire Act]
The Official Assignee Of Madras And As ... vs Vedavalli Thayarammal And Ors. on 20 August, 1925
9. I may now refer to two Bench decisions of this Court on which strong reliance was placed by learned Counsel for the plaintiff. The first is the decision in Official Assignee v, Vedavalli Thayarammal, AIR 1926 Mad 936=51 Mad LJ 182.
Subramania Padayachi And Ors. vs Pakkiri Padayachi on 10 October, 1934
10. The next decision to which reference may be made is the one in Subramania v. Pakkiri, AIR 1935 Mad 119. In that case, the testator bequeathed his properties to his minor son, appointed the testator's sister as the guardian to look after and protect the minor with a provision that in case, the minor son died, the testator's sister should take and enjoy all his properties. Madhavan Nair, J., held that the intention of the testator was that his sister should take the property only in the event of his sons surviving the testator, taking the properties and then dying and that it was not the intention of the testator that the sister should be entitled to the properties at the death of the son, whatever may be the point of tune. The learned Judge held that Section 129 did not apply; but Section 130 only applied.
1