SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1944 Supreme(Mad) 93

KRISHNASWAMI AYYANGAR
Navaneethammal – Appellant
Versus
Ammakannammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Krishnaswami Ayyangar, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit instituted by the appellant for partition and recovery of a share of the property left by her deceased husband Thangavelu Pillai by virtue of the provisions of the Hindu Womens Rights to Property Act, 1937. This. Act became law on 14th April 1937, when it received the assent of the Governor-General. Before the Act, a widow had no right to a share in any part of her husbands property, if the husband died as a member of a coparcenary or had left a son or sons surviving. For the first time the Act gave her such a right. Thangavelu Pillai who died on 28th June 1939, had married three wives in succession. The appellant is the second of his wives. Her two co-widows are Ammakannu Ammal and Dhanabagiammal, impleaded as defendants 1 and 2 in the suit. His only son, Kanakasabapathi still a minor, by his third wife Dhanabagiammal was joined as defendant 3. It is common ground that the estate left by Thangavelu Pillai comprised amongst others, agricultural lands. Under the Act, the appellant is entitled to a one-sixth share in the divisible properties. No question arises about the quantum of the share; the only question is, w



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top