Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.25 seconds)Thangavelu Pillai And Purshottam Reddi vs Doraisami Pillai And Anr. on 10 August, 1914
"The question propounded is whether one member of a joint Hindu family consisting of several members can, irrespective of a partition of the family estate, give his own interest therein to one of the other coparceners. If the judgments of this Court in Peddayya v. Ramalingam and Thangavelu Pillai v. Doraiswami Pillai are to be followed the answer must be in the affirmative, but it is said that the decision of the Privy Council in Venkatapathi Raju v. Venkatanarasimha Raju has made it clear that the observations in Peddayya v. Ramalingam and Thangavelu Pillai v. Doraiswami Pillai cannot be regarded as embodying a correct statement of the law.
Section 30 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Shrinivas Krishnarao Kango vs Narayan Devji Kango And Others on 23 March, 1954
32. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would contend that apart from items 1 to 4 and item 7, the other lands also were acquired by the joint family from out of the joint family income. It appears item 7 - a tiled house, was sold admittedly on consent of all co-sharers. It is submitted by both sides that item 11 of the suit property is beyond the controversy in the suit. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs would further submit that Ex.B5 the sale deed dated 15th June 1949 relating to 8th item of the suit properties even though would stand in the name of the first defendant as purchaser, the said property was purchased from out of the joint family income. The learned counsel for the first defendant would correctly and convincingly argue that in the absence of any evidence to show as to what was the income derived from the alleged joint family properties, there could be no presumption that the 8th item of the property purchased by the first defendant as per Ex.B5 could be construed as joint family property. At this juncture, my mind is redolent with the following decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in (i) AIR 1954 SC 379 (Srinivas Krishnarao Kango vs. Narayan Devji Kango and others). An excerpt from it would run thus:
Article 258 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 17 in The Registration Act, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Section 91 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Chella Subbanna And Anr. vs Chella Balasubbareddi And Ors. on 12 December, 1944
22. The learned counsel for the plaintiffs by placing reliance on the Full Bench decision of this Court reported in 1945 (1) MLJ 140 [Chella Subbanna and another vs. Chella Balasubbareddi and others] would develop his argument to the effect that even assuming, but without admitting that there was a release deed in respect of the co-parcenary properties, such relinquishments/releases under those documents cannot be taken as valid as no co-parcenar as per Mitakshara law could relinquish or release his share in the co-parcenary property to one of the several co-parceners. It is therefore just and necessary to extract hereunder the relevant portions of the cited judgment as under: