Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)T. Ramaswami Aiyar vs T. Subramania Aiyar And Ors. on 16 February, 1922
This judgment has been cited and commented upon by Venkatasubha Rao, J., in Ramaswami Iyer v. Subramania Aiyer (1922) 43 M.L.J. 406 : I.L.R. 46 Mad. 47 at 51 where also a claim of fiduciary relationship was made.
Section 94 in The Indian Trusts Act, 1882 [Entire Act]
Pulavarthi Lakshmanaswami vs Pulavarthi Sitaramamurthi And Ors. on 12 October, 1949
4. It is in view of these facts primarily that the learned Judge (Kailasam, J.) came to the conclusion that, after 9th July, 1954 the profits from the business could not be shared. The learned Judge referred to the dicta of Visvanatha Sastri, J., in Lakshmanaswami v. Sitaramamurthi (1950) 1 M.L.J. 32 on the effects of severance, and the inapplicability of the principles of partnership law, in their entirety, to a partition of the joint family business. The learned Judge also considered the applicability of the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian Trusts Act to the facts of the present case and, after citing certain authorities that we shall have occasion to briefly discuss subsequently, came to the conclusion as we said earlier, that the profits after 9th July, 1954, could not be shared, and that the second defendant was not liable to account for such profits to the plaintiff or other erstwhile co-parceners. It is the correctness of this finding, that mainly concerns us in this appeal.
1