Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.26 seconds)Veerasekhara Varmarayar vs Amirthavalliammal And Ors. on 27 June, 1973
Such female or the heirs mentioned in the proviso might as members, obligators or parties to a particular contract or bargain, voluntarily bind themselves to become liable along with the manager or kartha. This is a matter for proof. But, it does not axiomatically, follow that since there is a kartha, since there is a joint family and since there is a joint family business, the heirs who inherit the share of the deceased member of the coparcenary under the Act are coparceners and are to be automatically made liable for all the debts incurred by such kartha or manager. To adopt with respect the words of Ismail, J., in Veerasekara Varmarayar v. Amirthavalliammal .
Karuppa Gounder And Ors. vs Palaniammal And Ors. on 5 September, 1962
6. Srinivasan, J., speaking for the Bench in Karuppa Goundar v. Palaniammal , held that the "persons (the heirs specified in the proviso to Section 6) are entitled to succeed to the interest of the deceased coparcener under the Act but they shall not be subject to the hazard of the fluctuating fortunes of the family." The recitation within brackets is ours. When the learned Judges laid the accent on the hazard of the fluctuating fortunes of the family, they obviously made it clear that the female members, of which class we have been considering throughtout cannot be indiscriminately be held to be involved in the activities of the manager of the family irrespective of their voluntary zeal or interest in it by openly pr by necessary implication, participating in such activities.
P. Govinda Reddy And Ors. vs Golla Obulamma on 14 October, 1970
7. A Full Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in P. Govinda Reddy v. Golla Obulamama , dealt with the implications and the purport of Section 6 of the Act and the learned Judges observed thus:
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
1