Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)Section 35 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Kurapati Radhakrishna And Anr. vs Kurapati Satyanarayana And Ors. on 23 April, 1948
In Radhakrishna v. Satyanarayana, 1948-2 Mad LJ 331 = (AIR 1949 Mad 173), a Division Bench of this court points out that when once there is a division in a joint Hindu family, whether of status or property, there is no means of avoiding the result except by a reunion for which an agreement, express or implied, is always required. This decision also points out that a unilateral declaration of intention to divide by a member which is unequivocal and which is communicated to the other coparceners brings about a disruption or division of a status of a family and when once such a communication of intention is made, which has resulted in the severance of status, it is not open to the member concerned to nullify its effect so as to restore the family to its original joint status. It is further pointed out that the withdrawal of the unilateral act of declaration of intention to separate which had already resulted in a division in status cannot amount to an agreement to reunite.
Section 2 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
P.M. Ramaswamy Chettiar vs Roya Kuppa Chetti And Ors. on 30 March, 1961
"In our judgment, when the law permits a person interested in a minor to act on his behalf, any declaration to become divided made by him on behalf of the minor must be held to result in severance in status, subject only to the court deciding whether it is beneficial to the minor; and a suit instituted on his behalf, if found to be beneficial, must be held to bring about a division in status." The above decision has been followed and the point stressed by a Division Bench of this court in Ramaswami Chettiar v. Roya Kuppa Chetti, , and it is enough to quote the relevant part in the headnote-
1