Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.32 seconds)Mukkil Maruthur Sankara Menon And Ors. vs Mukkil Maruthur Gopala Menon And Ors. on 1 April, 1921
in Prabhakar Menon v. Gopala Menon (1960 Ker LJ 161) and by Raghavan J. in Sivasankaran v. Lakshmi (1966 Ker LT 327).
Akavande Mulanhur Vatakethil Kizhakke ... vs Akavande Mulanhur Elayat Vatakke Nair ... on 22 February, 1934
It refers to "the property" dealt with under the main part of the Section. It would be anomalous to hold that the main part of the Section has no retrospective effect, but the proviso has. Prior to the Madras Marumakkathavam Act the consensual partition that was recognised in the Malabar area was almost always on the per capita principle. See the decision of Madhavan Nair and Anatha-krishna Iyer JJ. in Sreedevi v. Peruvunni Nair (ILR 58 Mad 36) = (AIR 1935 Mad 71). (In the Travancore area there is authority that the division is stirpital). It is a per capita division that is recognised under Section 38 in Chapter VI of the Act The modification or restriction on that right is provided by the proviso to Section 48; and neither on principle nor on authority would we be justified in giving the said proviso anything more than a restricted interpretation. We are therefore of the opinion that neither the main part of the Section nor the proviso thereto can be given any retrospective operation.
Kannoth Punnoron Krishnan (Deceased) ... vs Kanoth Punnaran Thala And Ors. on 28 October, 1940
It was held by a Division Bench of the Madras High Court (Pandrang Row and King JJ.) in Krishnan v. Thala (AIR 1941 Mad 605) that the Section did not have any retrospective operation and that in the case of an acquisition prior to the date of the Act, the mode of division was per capita and not per stirpes The acqui-sition there was in the year 1881, by the husband Kelan in favour of his wife Manikkam. Two reasons were given in support of the decision: First that on the date of the Act Manikkam was not alive, that her union with her husband was not subsisting on that date as required by Section 4, and she could not be reparded as the "wife" of Kelan, her husband, so as to attract Section 48 The second reason was that prior to the Marumakkathavam Act, there was a right of partition depending upon the consent of all the members of the family, and that on such partition, the division was always per capita. There were therefore vested interests in the members of tavazhi, who could expect the property to be divided in a certain way. The right of partition had merely been extended by Chanter VI of the Act, and there was no reason for restricting the same by making the proviso to Section 48 retrospective in its operation. The principle that Section 48 of the Act is not retrospective in its operation, was affirmed by another Division Bench (Somayya and Yahva Ali JJ.)
1