Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.57 seconds)
Thazhath Valappil Prasanth vs Kalliani And Ors. on 23 February, 2007 cites

Kunhacha Umma vs Kutti Mammi Hajee on 13 December, 1892

Many inroads have been made into the joint family system as understood in the early decades of the last century. Any individual member can, by his mere declaration of intention, become divided from the rest of the family. Gains of science are now declared by statute to be the separate property of the acquirer.... Women have gained prominence and are no longer dependent on "the father in youth, on the husband during coverture and on the children in old age". This topic has been considered in Mayne's Hindu Law (Tench Edition) at pages 908 and 909. As pointed out by the learned author in Section 775, Section 95 of the Hindu Wills Act which governs the wills of all Hindus lays down a rule of construction as to a gift simpliciter which is uniformly applicable to all cases whether the gift is to a female or a male. Where property is bequeathed to any person, he or she is entitled to the whole interest of the testator therein unless it appears from the will that only a restricted interest was intended for him or her. Rules of construction which are intended to aid Courts of law in ascertaining the wishes of the testator have to be adapted with changing times. If therefore the rule of construction laid down in Sreemutty Soorjeemoney Dossee v. Denobundoo Mullick and in Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram is no longer applicable in cases governed by Hindu law, it is a matter for consideration whether the decision in Kunhacha Umma v. Kutti Mammi Hajee, based as it is expressly on the rule of construction in Sreemutty Soorjeemoney Dossee v. Denobundoo Mullick and Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram, should be adhered to. At any rate, it should, we think, be confined to a case of a gift to a wife and all her children where the wife is alive or if she is dead to all the children who form a tavazhi. Even; in Malabar times have changed. Impartibility which is the fundamental characteristic of a Malabar tarwad has been put an end to by the Madaras Marumakkattayam Act. Constant intercourse with the rest of India has brought about considerable changes in the ideas and notions of people on the West Coast. Confirmably to the progressive ideas of that community the Legislature enacted the above Act. Wives are now given substantial rights in the husband's properties. We have no hesitation in saying that the whole question must be reviewed when the question directly arises for decision and is not covered by Section 48 of the Marumakkatayam Act. A reasonable solution is to hold that, except in cases governed by Section 48 of the Act, there is no presumption that the donees do not get absolute rights.
Madras High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 36 - Full Document

Chalakaran Kuttayi Lakshmi And Anr. vs Chalakaran Puthia Purayil Mukundan ... on 12 March, 1953

Relying on the decision of the Madras High Court in Kuttayi Lakshmi v. Puthia purayil AIR 1954 Madras 235 and the decision of this Court in Parvathi Amma Kalliani Amma v. Padmanabha Pillai Krishna Pillai 1956 KLT 803, and in Sathyabhama Amma v. Taluk Land Board, Palghat 1978 KLT 359 it was argued that he bequest under Ext. B69 is not to defendants 1 to 3 individually but to the tavazhi of first defendant. Learned Counsel argued that no artificial tavazhi was created and instead karanavan bequeathed properties in favour of the existing tavazhi, making it clear that the properties are to be enjoyed by the tavazhi as marumakkathayam property and therefore intention of the testator was clear from Ext. B69 and learned District Judge was not correct in holding otherwise.
Madras High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ram Sarup Gupta (Dead) By Lrs vs Bishun Narain Inter College & Ors on 8 April, 1987

14. The object and purpose of pleading is to enable the adversary party to know the case it has to meet. For a fair trial it is imperative that the party should state the essential material facts so that other party may not be taken by surprise. At the same time pleadings should receive a liberal construction and no pedantic approach should be adopted to defeat justice on hair splitting technicalities. It may be that sometimes pleadings are expressed in words which may not be sufficient to make out a case in accordance with the strict interpretation of law. In such a case it is for the court to ascertain the substance of the pleading to determine the question. Apex Court in Ram Sarup Gupta v. Bishun Narain Inter College AIR 1987 SC 1242 held:
Supreme Court of India Cites 19 - Cited by 449 - K N Singh - Full Document
1   2 3 Next