Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (1.29 seconds)
K. V. Muthu vs Angamuthu Ammal on 17 December, 1996 cites

Hathibudi Anandar vs Govindan on 18 November, 1980

7. The respondent challenged this decision in the High Court where a learned Single Judge (S. Mohan, J., as he then was) doubted the decision in Hathibudi Anandar v. Govindan, (1981) 1 Madras Law Journal 250 and referred the matter to a Division Bench for decision on the question whether the foster son would be a member of the family of the landlord within the meaning of Section 2(6A) of the Act. The Division Bench reversed the decision of the Single Judge and held that a "Foster Son" would be a member of the family and, therefore, the petition filed by the respondent for the eviction of the appellant from the premises in question for bona fide need of herself and that of her "Foster Son" Arunachala Bakthar was maintainable. It is against this decision that the appellant has come up in appeal before this Court.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Govind Dass And Ors. vs Kuldip Singh on 28 April, 1970

Ramubai v. Jiyaram Sharma, AIR (1964) Bombay 96; the Delhi High Court in Govind Das & Ors. v. Kuldip Singh, AIR (1971) Delhi 151 and again in Abdul Hamid & Anr. v. Nur Mohd.,AIR (1976) Delhi 328 have all held that the word "Family" is a flexible word and it may, in certain circumstances, specially in the context in which it is used, may include persons who are not directly related by blood.
Delhi High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 80 - H R Khanna - Full Document

Abdul Hamid And Anr. vs Nur Mohd on 21 April, 1976

Ramubai v. Jiyaram Sharma, AIR (1964) Bombay 96; the Delhi High Court in Govind Das & Ors. v. Kuldip Singh, AIR (1971) Delhi 151 and again in Abdul Hamid & Anr. v. Nur Mohd.,AIR (1976) Delhi 328 have all held that the word "Family" is a flexible word and it may, in certain circumstances, specially in the context in which it is used, may include persons who are not directly related by blood.
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 50 - Full Document

Corporation Of The City Of Nagpur vs The Nagpur Handloom Cloth Marketco. Ltd on 7 December, 1962

17. This Court in Corporation of the City of Nagpur v. The Nagpur Handloom Cloth Market Co. Ltd., AIR (1963) SC 1192 while interpreting the word "Family" observed as under : "But the expression 'family' has according to the contest in which it occurs, a variable connotation. It does not in the setting of the rules postulate the existence of relationship either of blood or by marriage between the persons residing in the tenement Even a single person may be regarded as a family, and a master and servant would also be so regarded."
Supreme Court of India Cites 22 - Cited by 23 - J C Shah - Full Document

Adit Narayan Singh vs Mahabir Prasad Tiwari on 18 January, 1921

In parties Narayan singh v. Mahabir Prasad Tiwari, 48 Indian Appeals 86, the Privy Council held that 'Sons' in Mitakshara Chapter II 6(1) include a grand son. In the ancient Hindu Law, twelve sons are mentioned by the truth-seeing Sages all of whom need not be mentioned here. The attempt only is to indicates that the terms "Son" itself is a flexible term and may not be limited to the direct descendant, Its true meaning, Ike the term "Family" discussed above, will depend upon the context in which it is used. Even illegitimate son may be treated as legitimate, as for example, the 'Son' referred to in Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, as originally enacted.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 18 - Full Document
1   2 Next