cites: 13063

Musammat Girja Bai vs Sadashiv Dhundiraj on 19 May, 1916

5. This was laid down by the Privy Council in Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 104; and in a later case in Ramalinga Annavi v. Narayana Annavi A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 201 it was held that division in status took effect from the date of the declaration, namely, in the case of a suit, the date of the plaint.

Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 140 - Full Document

K. Ramalinga Annavi vs Narayana Annavi And Ors. on 26 February, 1917

5. This was laid down by the Privy Council in Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 104; and in a later case in Ramalinga Annavi v. Narayana Annavi A.I.R. 1922 P.C. 201 it was held that division in status took effect from the date of the declaration, namely, in the case of a suit, the date of the plaint.

Madras High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Palaniammal vs Muthuvenkatachala Maniagarar And Ors. on 29 August, 1917

8. The principle underlying these oases is that when there is a definite intention to divide, that intention should be given effect to; but where, as in this case, that intention has been expressed, but shortly afterwards negatived by the withdrawal of the partition suit, the mere filing of the suit cannot be deemed to be a sufficient proof of that intention in the light of subsequent events. This point was considered in Palaniammal v. Muthuvenhatachala (1917) 33 M.L.J. 759 where it was held that it was open to a co-parcener who has filed a suit for partition to abandon that intention before the suit proceeds to decree and to continue in a state of jointness.

Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

Musammat Girja Bai vs Sadashiv Dhundiraj on 19 May, 1916

K. Ramalinga Annavi vs Narayana Annavi And Ors. on 26 February, 1917

Palaniammal vs Muthuvenkatachala Maniagarar And Ors. on 29 August, 1917