Namburi Basava Subrahmanyam vs Alapati Hymavathi & Ors on 2 April, 1996
(i) (1996) 9 SCC 388 (Namburi Basava Subrahmanyam vs. Alapati Hymavathi & Others). An excerpt from it would run thus:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)Rajammal vs Pappayee Ammal on 9 October, 2002
(iv) It is worthwhile to highlight that both sides placed strong reliance on the earlier decision of this Court reported in 2002 (4) CTC 406 (Rajammal vs. Pappayee Ammal). An excerpt from it would run thus:
Arthur Mary Ammal vs Aruldoss Pillai (Deceased), M.F. Doss ... on 23 July, 2003
(v) In fact, the two other decisions viz., 2003 (3) MLJ 229 (Arthur Mary Ammal vs. Aruldoss Pillai (Deceased) and others and 2004 (4) MLJ 619 (Rasu Pillai vs. Muthukumaran and another) cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff are all based on the aforesaid judgment of this Court reported in 2002 (4) CTC 406; as such, I am of the considered opinion that in the light of the criteria set out in that judgment and also the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 1996 (9) SCC 388 cited supra, Ex.B1 should be analysed.
Kokilambal & Ors vs N.Raman on 21 April, 2005
20. My mind is also reminiscent of the following decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court reported in 2005 (3) LW 736 (Kokilambal and others vs. N.Raman). An excerpt from it would run thus:
The Transfer Of Property Act, 1882
Duraisami Reddiar And Anr. vs Saroja Ammal And Ors. on 3 February, 1981
(ii) The one other decision of this Court cited by the learned counsel for the plaintiff reported in AIR 1981 Madras 351 (Duraisami Reddiar and another vs. Saroja Ammal and others) is not relevant to this case as in the cited case, there was a recital in the deed that the testator reserved her right to retain her name in the patta till her death and whereupon the Court held that such a recital alone would not make a Gift Settlement as a Will.
Minor Shanmugam vs N.R. Mani And Anr. on 11 November, 2003
(iii) The decision of this Court reported in AIR 2004 Madras 178 (Minor Shanmugam vs. N.R.Mani and another) is on the point that if there is no recital in the document that the said document will be given effect after the death of the executant, it cannot be construed as a Will. Here, in Ex.B1, there is a clear indication that the vesting would take place only after her death and as such, the said cited decision is not applicable to the facts and circumstances of this case.
1