Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 17 (0.56 seconds)Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 31B in Constitution of India [Constitution]
His Highness Sri Sri Sri Lieut-Col. Sir ... vs Raja Rajeswara Rao And Anr. on 10 February, 1939
In fact in -- 'Maharaja Sahib of Venkatagiri v. Raja Rjeswara Rao', AIR 1939 Mad 614 (J) and -- 'Kumar Krishna Yachendra v. Rajeswara Rao', AIR 1942 PC 3 (k), the High Court of Madras and the Privy Council respectively proceeded on the footing that this allowance was maintenance allowance.
Umade Rajah Raji Damara Kumara Chinna ... vs Umade Rajah Raji Damara Kumara Thimma ... on 6 October, 1914
In -- 'Venkatappa Nayanim Bahadur Varu v. Rajah Thimminayanim Bahadur Varu', AIR 1915 Mad 639 (L), a Bench of the Madras High Court ruled, inter alia, that an allowance agreed to be paid under similar circumstances was a maintenance allowance and that persons in enjoyment of it would not be regarded as creditors of the estate.
Rajah D.K. Thimmanayanim Bahadur Varu, ... vs Rajah Damara Kumara Venkatappa Nayanim ... on 3 May, 1927
(18) Reliance was next placed on -- "Thimmannayanim v. Venkatappa Nayanim', AIR 1928 Mad 713 (FB) (N). What was called in aid by the counsel four the appellants is the principle stated by Odgers J. at page 722 that where the sight of maintenance is made the subject of a compromise which has been incorporated in a decree the Court has no power to alter it without consenor override the decree. That doctrine has no application to this case as the allowance fixed is not the subject of a compromise which has been incorporated in a decree.
Lal Rajindra Narain Singh vs Sunder Bibi on 19 February, 1925
In --- 'Rajindra Narain Singh v. Mt. Sundar Bibi', AIR 1925 PC 178 (O), a creditor sought to attach and sell the right and interest which a judgment-debtor had in sixteen zamindari villages, which he was put in possession of in a compromise of a suit brought by him to eject his brother from a zamindari estate. The deed provided inter alia that the plaintiff therein (i.e., the judgment-debtor)and after his death his male issue in the male branch should hold and possess the villages yielding a profit of Rs. 8000/- a year in lieu of maintenance without power of transfer during the life-time of his brother etc. The execution petition was resisted on the ground that the judgment-debtor's interest was a right to future maintenance within S. 60 (1), Civil P. C. and therefore not liable to attachment and sale. This objection found acceptance with the Subordinate Judge. The High Court of Allahabad on appeal disagreed with the trial Court on the legal position as to the nature of the judgment-debtor's interest in the property. The learned Judges remarked :
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 12 in Tamil Nadu Impartible Estates Act, 1904 [Entire Act]
Shiba Prasad Singh vs Rani Prayag Kumari Debi on 7 April, 1932
(11) The nature and incidents of an impartible estate have been summed up by Sir Dinshaw Mulla in -- 'Shiba Prasad v. Prayaga Kumari Debee', AIR 1932 PC 216 (B), in the following words :