Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.16 seconds)Raman Lalji Maharaj vs Gopal Lalji Maharaj And Ors. on 15 April, 1897
14. The view taken by the learned Judges of the Allahabad High Court in Sri. Raman Lalji v. Sri Gopal Lalji I.L.R. 19 A. 428 that one of several co-trustees is "not entitled to ask a court to partition the duties of the trust between himself and his co-trustees so as to give him the exclusive possession and management of the trust property for (say) six months in the year, putting the other trustees entirely aside during his period of management" and that trusteeship is not "personal property" liable to partition, is one to which not exception can be taken.
Section 28 in The Limitation Act, 1963 [Entire Act]
Annasami Pillai And Ors. vs Ramakrishna Mudaliar And Anr. on 18 October, 1900
6. If the respondent's title in the suit rested merely on the transfer made to him by the four members of the junior branch (who were co-trustees with him and the other members of the senior branch), it must be admitted that in the absence of the alleged instrument of transfer--which was admittedly unstamped and unregistered,---other evidence in proof of such transfer is inadmissible. It therefore becomes unnecessary to consider and decide whether such relinquishment, if proved, can be relied upon by the respondent as the basis of his title, having regard to the ruling of the Privy Council in Raja Vumah v. Ravi Vurmah I.L.R. 1 M. 235 and the decisions of this Court in Kuppa v. Durasami I.L.R., 6 M. 76 , Narayana v. Ranga I.L.R., 15 M. 183, Alagappa Mudaliar v. Sivarama Sundara Mudaliar I.L.R. 19 M. 211 and Annasami Pillai v. Ramakrishna Mudaliar I.L.R., 24 M. 230.
Article 127 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Alagirisami Naickar And Ors. And ... vs Sundareswara Ayyar And Ors. on 15 March, 1898
In this view, the office of trustee and the properties of the temple have been, for more than 12 years, held and possessed by the members of the senior branch, as a whole body, adversely to the members of the junior branch, as a body, and the rights of the latter have been by the operation of Section 28 of the Limitation Act, extinguished (Alagirisami Naicker v. Sundareswara Ayyar I.L.R. 21 M. 278) not in favour of the respondent individually but in favour of the members of the senior branch, as a body. The appellant , therefore, cannot plead, in bar of the respondent's claim that the junior branch or rather, one of its members, and not the respondent, is entitled to succeed him in the turn of management.
Alagappa Mudaliar vs Sivarama Sundara Mudaliar And Ors. on 25 October, 1894
6. If the respondent's title in the suit rested merely on the transfer made to him by the four members of the junior branch (who were co-trustees with him and the other members of the senior branch), it must be admitted that in the absence of the alleged instrument of transfer--which was admittedly unstamped and unregistered,---other evidence in proof of such transfer is inadmissible. It therefore becomes unnecessary to consider and decide whether such relinquishment, if proved, can be relied upon by the respondent as the basis of his title, having regard to the ruling of the Privy Council in Raja Vumah v. Ravi Vurmah I.L.R. 1 M. 235 and the decisions of this Court in Kuppa v. Durasami I.L.R., 6 M. 76 , Narayana v. Ranga I.L.R., 15 M. 183, Alagappa Mudaliar v. Sivarama Sundara Mudaliar I.L.R. 19 M. 211 and Annasami Pillai v. Ramakrishna Mudaliar I.L.R., 24 M. 230.
1