Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.23 seconds)
Sheik Ibrahim Rowther Alias Chinnappa ... vs Muhamad Ibrahim Rowther And Ors. on 12 August, 1915 cites

Rarichan vs Perachi And Ors. on 7 March, 1892

In many cases the inquiry is as to what is the law, and not as to what is the usage at variance with law Hirbai v. Gorbai 12 B.H.C.R. 294 at pp. 316, 317; Rarichan v. Perachi 15 M. 281; Kunhi Raman v. Kunhi Parwathi 8 Ind. Cas. 367 : (1910) M.W.N. 642 : 9 M.L.T. 92. The Judicial Committee in dealing with a family custom forbidding adoption said: "Looking at the origin and history of the family, it appears to their Lordships that the question is not whether the general Hindu Law is modified by a family custom forbidding adoption, but whether with respect to inheritance the family is governed by Hindu Law, or by customs which do not allow an adopted son to inherit".
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Kunhambi And Ors. vs Kalanathar And Ors. on 24 April, 1914

As observed in Kunhambi v. Kalanathar 24 Ind. Cas. 528 : M.L.J. 156 : 16 M.L.T. 17 it is under the provisions of the Civil Courts Act a question of fact in each case as to the usage followed by the family, and in the present case, I think, the usage is sufficiently proved. As regards the point taken as to res judicata, I agree with the judgment of my learned brother and with the order proposed by him.
Madras High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1