Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)Rm. Ar. Ar. Rm. Ar. Ar. Umayal Achi vs Lakshmi Achi And Ors. on 2 September, 1943
It was argued on behalf of the learned Counsel for the appellant that the categories of separate property mentioned in Mulla's Hindu Law were not exhaustive and this kind of property which was received by Ramaswami by virtue of a settlement deed could be regarded as 'separate Property'. We do not think we can accept his argument in the face of the decisive pronouncement of the Federal Court in Umayal Achi's case, AIR 1945 FC 25.
Kanteti Sastrulu vs Madupalli Venkateswara Rao on 18 September, 1958
In a Full Bench decision of this Court of which both of us were parties (Chandra Reddy C.J. and Srinivasachari J.,) in the ease of Kanteti Sastrulu v. Madupalli Venkateswara Rao, (FB), we had occasion to advert to the observations of Varadachariar J. in AIR 1945 FC 25 and adopted the reasoning of the learned Judge.
The Indian Succession Act, 1925
1