Advocate Simranjeet Singh Sidhu Internet Marketing For Lawyers – Advice That Counts Simranjeet Law Associates 815, Sector 16 D, Chandigarh, 160015

We have read the Sessions Judge’s charge to the jury, which is a very fair and full charge, and nothing has been shown to us to justify the conclusion that the verdict of the jury should not have been accepted. We think, howev- er, that Kandasami in dealing with Sundara Pandiya was safeguarding his own right of succession against the attack personally directed against him and was successful in buying him off by agreeing to hand over to him a village. There were other materials in the case indicating that there was complete separation between the members of this family.

It was contended that in view of the attitude taken by the parties before the High Court that the deed of release and the compromise evidenced only one arrangement to which all the members were in reali- ty parties it should be held that the surrender of his rights by Sundara Pandiya was made in favour of Kandasami, the head of the family, and it extinguished the rights of the third branch in the family zamindari. Her title to the zamindari was denied by the descendants of the four sons of the zamindar.

Certain family jewellery was also divided in a similar manner. The family as such could not have been prejudiced in any way by the circum- stance that succession went to one or the other. The relevant facts are these. This grandson then died leaving a son, who also died without any issue but leaving a widow. Obviously, dissatisfied with this dismissal order, the respondent approached the High Court for grant of bail which came up for hearing before the High Court on 27.

It is clear from the facts of this case that the family owned other coparcenary properties besides the zamindari and the zamind- ari in dispute fell to the lot of the grandson as his sepa- rate property. During the minority of the grandson the four surviving sons executed a sanad which directed that the zamindari should be held by the grandson and that they should take an equal share of the inam lands and also manage the zamindari during the infancy of the grandson, which on his attaining majority had to be handed over to him, each confining crime (additional reading) himself to the share of the inam lands allotted to them.

) pronounced on a reference made to it by the Income- tax Tribunal under section 66 (2) of the Indian Income- tax Act. The facts of the case being free from any complications and the points in issue being simple, we find it difficult to hold that the examina- tion of the appellant in this particular case was not ade- quate. Pending trial, the respondent filed bail application before the learned Additional Sessions Judge which was heard and dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 30.

The respondents are a private limited company which was brought into existence to float various companies including cotton mills. There can be no doubt that a member of a joint family owning an impartible estate can on behalf of himself and his heirs renounce his right of succession; but any such relinquish- ment must operate for the benefit of all the members and the surrender must be in favour of all the branches the busies, supplemental resources, of the family, or in favour of the head of the family as represent- ing all its members.

However, permission was sought to withdraw the said bail application and accepting this request, the bail petition was dismissed as withdrawn on 27. In the first case the owner of an impartible zamindari forming part without law and order (supplemental resources) of family property died leaving four sons and an infant grandson by his eldest son. The Judgment of the Court was deliv- ered by KANIA C. Here the deed was executed in favour of the widow of a deceased copgrcener who as such was a stranger to the coparcenary, the family being admittedly joint at the death of Kamaraja I.

Be that as it may, we think the decision 267 of this case can be made to rest on a more solid foundation than furnished by the considerations set out above. 207 whether he would adduce any evidence. It has nowhere been stated that the accused was in any way prejudiced, and there are no materi- als before us to hold that he was or might have been preju- diced. It was observed in this case that having partitioned the lands, the parties to the sanad proceeded to partition the jewels and this circumstance was inconsistent with the supposition that the document was executed with the intention of merely providing allotments in lieu of maintenance.

In November, 1932, the Basanti Cotton Mills Ltd. Both of them were claiming headship of the family on different grounds and both were asserting that the zamindari belonged to the joint family. It was held that the sanad amounted to an agreement by which the joint family was divided and that on the death of complying – supplemental resources, the last holder his widow was entitled to the zamindari. In the compromise Kandasami was acting for his own benefit and was not making any bargain with Sundara Pandiya on behalf of the family.

–This is an appeal from the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta (Harries C. To sustain such an argument as has been put forward, it is not sufficient for the accused merely to show that he has not been fully examined as required by section 342 of the Criminal Procedure Code, but he must also show that such examination has materially prejudiced him. In the present case, it appears that the point measure (supplemental resources) urged here was not raised in the grounds of appeal to the High Court, nor does it find a place in the grounds of appeal or in the statement of case filed in this court.

You must be logged in to post a comment.