Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)
Paru Amma And Ors. And Narayana Menon vs Itticheri Amma And Ors. on 4 November, 1915 cites

Kunhacha Umma vs Kutti Mammi Hajee on 13 December, 1892

1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my brother is about to deliver, and as I entirely agree with it, no useful purpose would be served by my going over the same ground twice. I have considered very carefully the Full Bench decisions in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee 16 M. 201; 2 M.L.J. 226 and Chakkara Kannan v. Varayalankandi Kunhi Pokker 30 Ind. Cas. 755; 29 M.L.J. 481; (1915) M.W.N. 740; 18 M.L.T. 255 (F.B.) and I have come to the conclusion that the principles of construction they lay down do not compel me to treat Exhibit IV as being other than what it purports to be on the face of it, a devise of an absolute estate to the 1st defendant. Its language is to me quite inconsistent with its being intended as a putravakanam gift. The argument that the donee's position as manager of a tavazhi raises a presumption that the intention was to benefit the tavazhi, loses all its force from the fact that it is not contended that the gift was to the whole tavazhi of which he was the manager, but only to the sub-tavazhi constituted by the present appellants.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

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

1. I have had the advantage of perusing the judgment which my brother is about to deliver, and as I entirely agree with it, no useful purpose would be served by my going over the same ground twice. I have considered very carefully the Full Bench decisions in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee 16 M. 201; 2 M.L.J. 226 and Chakkara Kannan v. Varayalankandi Kunhi Pokker 30 Ind. Cas. 755; 29 M.L.J. 481; (1915) M.W.N. 740; 18 M.L.T. 255 (F.B.) and I have come to the conclusion that the principles of construction they lay down do not compel me to treat Exhibit IV as being other than what it purports to be on the face of it, a devise of an absolute estate to the 1st defendant. Its language is to me quite inconsistent with its being intended as a putravakanam gift. The argument that the donee's position as manager of a tavazhi raises a presumption that the intention was to benefit the tavazhi, loses all its force from the fact that it is not contended that the gift was to the whole tavazhi of which he was the manager, but only to the sub-tavazhi constituted by the present appellants.
Madras High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 32 - Full Document

Abdul Cadur Haji Mahomed vs C.A. Turner Official Assignee And Ors. on 26 August, 1884

P.C.J. 291; 1 Sar P.C.J. 583. and Mahomed Shumsool Hooda v. Shewukram A. 7; 22 W.R. 409; 14 B.L.R. 226, the latter of which is a case of a devise to a Hindu wife by her father-in-law, the Privy Council expressing its opinion that a gift simpliciter to a woman may be presumed to confer only a widow's estate as being more in accordance with the presumed wishes of the testator. Even in that case, the widow may have a limited power of alienation in the corpus of the property devised. But if an absolute power of alienation is conferred by the Will nobody has ever contended, even in the case of a devise by a Hindu husband to his wife, that the devisee did not take an absolute interest in the property but only took a widow's estate. The other terms of the Will set out above also show that the intention of the testator was to devise the property solely to the first defendant as his individual property and that the gift was not a putravakasam gift. That the testator was quite familiar with the distinction between a gift to an individual and to a tavazhi represented by that individual is also clear from Exhibit XVII, paragraph 7, a transaction brought about by the Achan himself. J, therefore, hold that the 1st defendant became the owner of the equity of redemption in the suit properties under the terms of Exhibit 4. I do not think it necessary to consider the various cases cited by the Pleaders on both sides, as they do not lay down any principle of law or rule of construction and they are of no use on the construction of the terms of this particular Will.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 5 - Full Document
1