Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.16 seconds)
Nanjaya Mudali And Anr. vs Shanmuga Mudali And Ors. on 5 December, 1913 cites

Chinnu Pillai vs Kalimuthu Chetti on 27 January, 1911

It has been held that this right is not determined by the death of the alienor before partition, (ibid), and that the quantum of interest transferred must be taken as that of the alienor at the date of the assignment (Chinnu Pillai v. Kalimuthu Chetti (1910) I.L.R. 35 M. 47 but there appears to be no reason why the transferor should not by appropriate words convey all such rights as he may possess, whether vested or contingent upon the death of another coparcener in the transferor's lifetime; and the transferor obviously cannot prevent his share from being diminished by reason of the birth of a collateral co-sharer or by legitimate payments or alienations by the manager of the family.
Madras High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 48 - Full Document

V. Subba Row vs Annathanarayana Aiyar And Ors. on 21 March, 1912

3. The first question that is argued before us is that by the transfer in 1894 the joint tenancy was put an end to and the 3rd defendant's first alienee became a tenant in common with the other co-parceners so far as the property was concerned and that therefore by the death of the other co-parceners no interest accrued to him by survivorship; and for this the decisions of Benson and Miller JJ. in Srinivasa Sundara Thathachariar v. Krishnaswami Aiyangar (1912) 11 M.L.T. 312 : 15 I.C. 351 and of Benson and Sundara Aiyar, JJ, in Subba Row v. Anantanarayana Aiyar (1912) 23 M.L.J. 64 are relied upon.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Ramkishore Kedarnath vs Jainarayan Ramrachhpal on 11 July, 1913

11. So far as Madras is concerned, there is no distinction in this respect between the rights of a purchaser in execution of a decree and by private alienation; and in Ramhishore Kedarnath v. Ramrachhpal (1913) 14 M.L.T. 163 which is a recent case of private alienation, the Judicial Committee pointed out that the members of a family who were not bound by the alienation were entitled to recover possession of the entire property as they were entitled to it as joint, family property and desired to enjoy it as such. They also pointed out that in a suit for such possession it may be open to the Court to make the whole or any part of the relief granted to them conditional on their assenting to a partition, so far as regards the alienor's interest in the estate, so as to give effect to any right which the alienee may be entitled to, claiming through the alienor. The two Madras cases above referred to as well as these Privy Council decisions do not seem to have been considered by the learned Judges in arriving at the conclusion that the alienee becomes a tenant-in-common of the portion of the joint family property aliented. The decisions of the other High Courts cited by Krishna swam y Aiyar J. if opposed to these decisions, cannot be followed nor has the decision of the Full Bench in I.L.R. 35 M. 47 anything to do with the case. It only determined the time for ascertaining the alienating co-parcener's share which passed to the purchaser. I am accordingly unable to follow the decisions relied upon by the appellants.
Bombay High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 43 - Full Document
1