Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.15 seconds)
Kasturi Narasaraju vs Kasturi Satyavatamma And Ors. on 20 October, 1938 cites

Sri Raja Venkata Narasimha Appa Row vs Sri Raja Parthasarathy Appa Row Savai ... on 24 July, 1913

This is what their Lordships held to be beyond the power of the Court, in Raja Venkata Narasimha Appa Row v. Raja Parthasarathi Appa Row (1913) 26 M.L.J. 411 : L.R. 41 I.A. 51 : I.L.R. 37 Mad. 199 at 225 (P.C.). A case which seems to be practically on all fours with the present is referred to by Sir D.F. Mulla as reported in Coryton 1, 42. - See Illustration (a) on page 520 of the eighth edition, of his book on Hindu Law. But as that report is not available to us here, we do not propose to base our decision on the authority of that case. But for the reasons stated above, we have come to the same conclusion.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 82 - Full Document

Bhagwat Koer vs Dhanukdari Prasad Singh on 30 June, 1919

We are unable to see how the present case differs in principle from the case in Bhagwat Koer v. Dhanukdhari Prasad Singh (1919) 37 M.L.J. 513 : L.R. 46 I.A. 259 : I.L.R. 47 Cal. 466 (P.C.). Clause (8) of Ex. A begins with the words "if a male child be born" and it is only that contingency that is provided for. It is not possible to say that the testator was not alive to the contingency of a daughter being born because Clause (7) has provided for it, and it is obvious that he has not chosen to give his wife a power of adoption in that contingency. If we are to hold that even in that contingency the widow must have been intended to be authorised to adopt, the Court would clearly be providing for a contingency which the testator left unprovided for.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 25 - Full Document
1