Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.22 seconds)Section 11 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Musammat Girja Bai vs Sadashiv Dhundiraj on 19 May, 1916
Their Lordships see no reason to depart from that view, although such a plaint, even if withdrawn, would, unless explained, afford evidence that an intention to separate had been entertained see Girja Bai v. Sadashiv Dhundiraj 31 M.L.J. 455 and Kawal Nain v. Prabhu Singh 33 M.L.J. 42. In a suit for partition which proceeds to a decree which was made, the decree for a partition is the evidence to show whether the plaintiff from his coparceners or was a separation of all the members of the joint family from each other.
Krishnaswami Naidu And Ors. vs Perumal Alias Mammaya Naidu And Anr. on 17 April, 1924
In Krishnaswami Naidu and Ors. v. Perumal alias Nammayya Naidu and Anr. 47 M.L.J. 522 : A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 112 : 83 I.C. 84 : 1924 M.W.N. 742, this Court further held thus: (at pages 113 and 114)
The principle underlying these cases is that when there is a definite intentionn to divide, that intention should be given effect to; but where, as in this case, the intention has been expressed, but shortly afterwards negatived, by the withdrawal of the partition suit, the mere filing of the suit cannot be deemed to be a sufficient proof of that intentionn in the light of subsequent events.
Palaniammal vs Muthuvenkatachala Maniagarar And Ors. on 29 August, 1917
This point was considered in Palaniammal v. Muthuvenkatachala 48 M.L.J. 83 : A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 49 : 52 I.A. 83 : I.L.R. 48 Mad. 254 : 87 I.C. 333, where it was held that it was open to a coparcener who has filed a suit for partition to abandon that intention before the suit proceeds to decree and to continue in a state of jointness.
Vemi Reddi Seshu Reddi vs Nallappa Reddi Raghava Reddi And Ors. on 20 January, 1920
The same view was taken by another Bench of this Court in Vemi Reddi v. Nallanna Reddi 11 L.W. 611, I, therefore, hold that in this case, there was no division in status, effected by the filinng of the prior suit.
Palani Ammal vs Muthuvenkatachala Moniagar on 20 November, 1924
In Palani Ammal v. Muthuvenkatachala Moniager and Ors. 48 M.L.J. 83 : A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 49 : 52 I.A. 83 : I.L.R. 48 Mad. 254 : 87 I.C. 333, their Lordships held at page 51 thus:
His Highness Sri Sri Sri Lieut-Col. Sir ... vs Raja Rajeswara Rao And Anr. on 10 February, 1939
In Rajah V. Maheswara Rao v. Rajah V. Rajeswara Rao (1967) 1 M.L.J. 175, the entire case law was considered, and it was held thus:
Pulavarthi Venkata Subba Rao And Ors. vs Valluri Jagannadha Rao And Ors. on 18 December, 1945
In Subba Rao v. Jaganadha Rao , their Lordships considered the question of a compromise decree and how far the same bars a party from reagitating the same. The relevant portion of the said decision reads thus:
S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) By ... vs Jagannath (Dead) By L.Rs. And Others on 27 October, 1993
In S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (dead) by L.Rs. v. Jagannath (died) by L.Rs. and Ors. (1994) 1 S.C.C. 1, their Lordships held thus: