Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)
Smt. Seetha And Ors. vs Kayiyath Krishnan And Ors. on 25 November, 1974 cites

Kunhacha Umma vs Kutti Mammi Hajee on 13 December, 1892

22. It now only remains for us to refer to a recent decision of a Division Bench of this court (Gopalan Nambiyar and Viswanatha Iyer, JJ.), in 1973 Ker LT 753 = (AIR 1974 Ker 82). Though the question as to the applicability of the presumption in respect of transactions of gift or purchase in the name of the wife alone or in the joint names of the wife and some alone of the children did not directly arise for decision in that case the learned Judges made a passing reference to the said aspect also and expressed the view that a gift, bequest or acquisition in the name of the wife alone, or in the names of the wife and one or more of the children alone to the exclusion of the others, would not give rise to such a presumption. We fully agree with the said statement of the law,
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Lekshmi Amma And Ors. vs Anandan Nambiar And Ors. on 21 June, 1973

Relying on the decisions of the Madras High Court in AIR 1947 Mad 137, and AIR 1954 Mad 987. and also on the Division Bench ruling of this court in A. S. No. 795 of 1952 (M) (Lekshmi Amma v. Anandan Nambiar. 1958 Ker LT (SN) 30), wherein the Madras decisions had been followed, the learned Judges held that it is only in cases where a gift or acquisition is made by a person in favour of his wife and all his children by her or in favour of all his children who by themselves form a tavazhi that there is a presumption under the Malabar law that the acquisition is for the benefit of the tavazhi as a whole. The decision in 1960 Ker LJ 161, was cited and relied on by the appellant before the Division Bench as an authority supporting his contention that even in the case of an acquisition by a person in the name of his wife alone there is a presumption under the marumakkathayam law applicable in Malabar area that the property is to be taken by her with the incidents of tar-wad property.
Kerala High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Machikandi Parkum Maramittath ... vs Varayalankandi Kunhi Pokker And Four ... on 12 August, 1915

9. Subsequently, the correctness of the Full Bench decision in (1893) ILR 16 Mad 201, was doubted by a Division Bench consisting of Sankaran Nair and Tyabji, JJ., who were inclined to take the view that there is no scope for applying any such presumption in cases where the female and her children in whose favour the gift or purchase is effected did not as on the date of the transaction already form a separate tavazhi living apart from the tarwad house in a house of their own with properties belonging exclusively to their branch. The learned Judges, therefore, referred the question to a Full Bench. That led to the leading pronouncement on the subject reported in Chakkra Kanna v. Kunhi Pokker, ILR 39 Mad 317 = (AIR 1916 Mad 391) (FB). The Full Bench took note of the fact that the decision in (1893) ILR 16 Mad 201, had been accepted as correct and followed in a large number of cases subsequently decided by the Madras High Court.
Madras High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Mukkil Maruthur Sankara Menon And Ors. vs Mukkil Maruthur Gopala Menon And Ors. on 1 April, 1921

The learned Judges, if we may say so with respect, rightly, rejected the said contention and pointed out that in Prabhakara Menon's case 1960 Ker LJ 161 despite the fact that the document of acquisition stood only in the names of his wife and her major children the court had found that since by a subsequent deed the minor children, had also been subsequently recognised as having rights in the property treating them as part of the group in whose favour the property was acquired the original transaction itself had to be treated as one in favour of the wife and of her children and it was only on that basis that the presumption was held to be applicable.
Madras High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Duja Bhandary And Ors. vs Venku Bhandari And Ors. on 22 September, 1915

11. Shortly after the Full Bench decision in ILR 39 Mad 317 - (AIR 1916 Mad 391) (FB), the question whether such a presumption would arise where the gift is in favour of the wife alone arose directly for consideration before a Division Bench consisting of Ayling and Seshagiri Aiyar, JJ., in Duja Bhandary v. Venku Bhandary. AIR 1916 Mad 825. The learned Judges held that in such a case there is no presumption that the donee, namely, the wife, takes the property with the incidents of tarwad property.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1