Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.16 seconds)
Sashi Ammal vs Ps. Ar. Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar By ... on 16 March, 1949 cites

Palani Goundan vs Peria Goundan on 18 September, 1940

I am unable to accept the contention of the learned advocate for the appellant, that what was embodied in Palani Goundan v. Peria Goundan (1940) 2 M.L.J. 887, should be taken merely as obiter dicta. It is a clear pronouncement of what were the requirements of Section 19 of the Act. As I have already said, I agree with the Courts below in holding that the fifth defendant had no saleable interest on 29th May, 1944, the date of her application under Section 19 of the Act.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

T.N.V. Kailasa Thevar vs V. Ramaswami Ayyangar And Ors. on 12 December, 1947

Should their position really be that of co-mortgagors, to what extent the principles laid down in Kailasa Thevar v. Ramaswami Aiyangar (1948) 2 M.L.J. 28, would apply would be a point for consideration. I think that these questions should be dealt with in the first instance by the trial Court. The petition is therefore remanded to the learned Munsif for disposal afresh in the light of the observations in this Judgment.
Madras High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document
1