Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.25 seconds)Krishnamurthy Aiyar vs Krishnamurthy Aiyar And Ors. on 8 February, 1924
13. In order to appreciate the contentions advanced, it is necessary to sift the case law on the point. The earliest being the decision of the Privy Council in the case of Krishnamurthi Ayyar v. Krishnamurthy Ayyar and Anr. AIR 1925 Madras 932 The facts of the said case though not identical in all respects to the facts of the present case, one of the points that fell for consideration in that case was whether the Will taken along with the deed of consent, is binding on the appellant therein so as to cut down what would have been his rights had he been a natural instead of adopted son. It was contended that an adopted son from the moment of adoption occupies the place of a natural son and a natural son, in case of ancestral property, becomes a co-sharer with his father, with the right of survivorship and of partition as to the whole ancestral property. While answering the said question the Madras High Court undertook survey of earlier decision having bearings on the point. His Lordship Viscount Dunedin summed up the position thus:
Sukhdevdoss Ramprasad vs Mt. Choti Bai And Ors. on 14 September, 1927
In Dowager Rani Lalitha Kumaridevi and Ors. v. The Raja of Vizianagaram and Ors., Venkatarama Ayyar J., in his separate Judgment after having examined several judicial dicta, followed the principle enunciated in Krishnamurthi Ayyar's case ((Supra) AIR 1925 Madras 932) and disapproved the opinion of Philips offg, C.J. in Sukhdevdoss Ramaprasad v. Mt. Choti Bai, AIR 1928 PC 118(E) : 27 MAD LW 145 in which case one Govardhan Doss Motha had bequeathed his properties absolutely to his widow. She then adopted a son and one of the questions considered was whether the adoption had the effect of diversting the estate which had vested in her under the Will of her husband. Philips offg. C.J. took the view that it did have that effect.
Erram Reddy Chenchu Krishnamma vs Maram Reddy Lakshminarayana And Anr. on 6 May, 1927
15. Venkataram Ayyar J., in the same judgment, also disapproved the opinion of Philips J. and Srinivas Ayanagar J. in Erram Reddy Chenchu Krishnamma v. Maram Reddy Lakshminaryana and Anr., AIR 1928 MAD 271 (F) in which case the testator had bequeathed his properties absolutely to his widow and by the same will conferred on her a power to adopt and in pursuance of the authority, the widow had made an adoption and the adopted son claimed the properties which had been bequeathed to her by virtue of his title as an adopted son. It was held by Philips and Srinivas Aiyangar, JJ., that the adoption divested the widow of the properties which she had got under the will.
Anant Bhikappa Patil vs Shankar Ramchandra Patil on 26 July, 1943
23. A three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango and Anr., having examined earlier judicial pronouncements of the Privy Council on the question which formed the basis of the decision in Ananth Bhikkappa's case (Supra 1943 pc 196 AIR), held that the said Judgment, insofar as it relates to properties inherited from collaterals is not sound and in respect of such properties, the adopted son can lay no claim on the ground of relation back.
Balu Sakharam Powar vs Lahoo Sambhaji Tetgura on 16 October, 1936
In the case of Ananth Bhikkappa (Supra 1943 pc 196 AIR), the Privy Council overruled the Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court in Balu Sakhram's case (Supra 1937 Bom/ 508 ILR : 1937 Bom.
Amarendra Man Singh Bhramarbar Rai vs Sanatan Singh on 4 April, 1933
279 AIR)) and the decision of the Privy Council in Amarendra Mansingh v. Sanatan Singh, (1933) 12 Pat.
Vijaysingji Chhatrasingji Thakor vs Shivsangji Bhimsangji Thakor on 11 March, 1935
642 and Vijay Singhji Chhatrasingji v. Shivsangji Bhimsangji, (1935) 62 I.A. 161 the Full Bench held that an adopted son must be deemed to be a posthumous son for the purpose of inheritance as if he existed on the date of death of the adoptive father and a partition made by the coparceners of his father before adoption can be reopened. However, it was clarified that though the title of the adopted son dates back to the death of the adoptive father for inheriting or taking his adoptive father's estate, the only limit to his right to succession is that he takes the estate subject to the disposition made within the competency of the person who was entitled to hold the said estate until his adoption.
Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango And Others on 23 March, 1954
54 Page 12) to the extent that it is in contradistinction with the decision of the Supreme Court in Srinivas Krishnarao Kango's case (Supra and Shripad's case (Supra ) though not considered by the Supreme Court stands impliedly overruled.
Ramachandra vs Anasuyabai And Ors. on 29 February, 1968
54 Page 12 and the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Ramachandra v. Anasuyabai and Ors. AIR 1969 Mysore 64 which have bearing on the decision-making on the aforementioned two questions and having opined that the opinion to be handed down by the Court on the aforementioned two issued would have for-reaching implications, thought it appropriate to refer the entire appeal for final disposal to the Full Bench. As directed by the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, the appeal is laid before the Full Bench for hearing and final disposal of the appeal.