Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.22 seconds)
Date Of Reserving The Judgment vs Kausalya Devi on 23 June, 2015 cites

Parvathi Ammal vs Solai Ammal And Anr. on 10 March, 1997

In the decision reported in 1997-2-L.W.908, Parvathi Ammal v. Solai Ammal and Another, wherein on the plea by daughter (plaintiff) that the purchase of property in the name of her mother, was benami for the father and that after the father's death, plaintiff will be entitled to a share therein, it was held that the intention of parties is the main consideration. It is appropriate to incorporate paragraph 11 and 14 of the said decision:
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 7 - D Raju - Full Document

S. Cenniappa Mudaliar, Madurai vs The Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Madras on 30 April, 1964

9. The next case cited by the counsel for the appellants is Chenniappa Mudaliar v. C.I.T. Madras (1964) 2 M.L.J. 157 (F.B.). it was held by the Full Bench that there is a real distinction between the case of dismissal of a legal proceeding for default of appearance and one given on merits. In the former case, it is termination of the proceeding for non-prosecution. Such termination decides nothing as regards the matters in controversy; it merely gets rid of the pending proceeding. Unless there be a statutory bar, the dismissal of a case for default, cannot prevent the party from commencing the same proceedings afresh but the institution of such fresh proceedings might become impossible on account of rules of limitation as to the filing of appeals or by reason of any specific provision in that regard under the Rules themselves. It will thus be apparent that the dismissal of a case for default can, in no sense, amount to an adjudication on its merits. This is quite unlike a case of an ex parte decision where there is an adjudication on the merits. A judgment given for default of appearance by the appellant cannot (unlike the case of an ex parte one) operate as res judicata. But the above citation is not applicable to the facts of the present case because in the instant case the suit in O.S.No.104 of 1980 was decreed exparte.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 12 - Full Document

Nand Kishore Mehra vs Sushila Mehra on 2 July, 1995

In Nand Kishore v. Sushila it was held that the prohibition to raise the plea of benami is not applicable to the property purchased by a person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter but at the same time, the persons so pleading must prove that the said property had not been purchased, for the benefit or welfare of such persons in order to succeed. In coming to such conclusion, their Lordships of the Apex Court adverted to Section 3(2) which provided that nothing in Sub-section (1) which in turn stipulated no person shall enter into any benami transaction, shall apply to the purchase of property by any person in the name of his wife or unmarried daughter and that it shall be presumed, unless contrary is proved, that the said property had been purchased for the benefit of the wife or the unmarried daughter. ..... In the instant case, in the previous suit, the second defendant herein had specifically averred that she had purchased the property out of her own earnings. So, it is irrelevant to decide whether the property has been purchased by the appellant in the name of the second defendant/Alamelu Ammal.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 93 - N Venkatachala - Full Document
1