Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
Chathoth Parkum Kareth Kombi Kunhammad ... vs Parambath Chathankandi Enna ... on 7 February, 1924 cites

Kunhacha Umma vs Kutti Mammi Hajee on 13 December, 1892

The former was a case of gift by a Marumakkatayam donor to his nieces with no apt words to express an absolute estate and Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Haji (1892) ILR 16 M 201 : 2 MLJ 226 was followed by Kumaraswarmi Sastri, J., whose judgment was upheld in Letters Patent Appeal No. 19 of 1916. The other case was one of a bequest. in which the words ' with absolute rights of alienation ' were used and it was there held that the legatee took an absolute estate.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Chakkingal Tavazhi Tharavathil ... vs Chakkingal Tavazhi Tharavathil Ragava ... on 24 October, 1912

5. Thus in cases where the gift or bequest has been to a woman and her children and there is no further expression of intention as to how it should be held, no apt words to express the gift of an absolute alienable estate-it has been held that they took it and held it as a woman and her children usually would hold under the Marumakkatayam Law, that is, as a legal corporate unit or tarwad. [See Kunhacha Umma v Kutti Mammi Haji (1892) ILR 16 M 201 : 2 MLJ 226, Koroth Amman Kutti v. Perungottil Appu Nambiar (1906) ILR 29 M 322 and Naku Amma v. Raghava Menon (1912) ILR 38 M 79. When a gift or bequest is to a woman and her children with. words which might be taken to import an intention to confer an absolute estate, it has been held that, since the usual manner of holding property by a woman and her children under Marumakkatayam Law is in the form of a tavazhi, it must be taken that the donees held the property in that way.
Madras High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1