Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: hindu adoptions and maintenance act 1956 section 27 maintenance when to be a charge Court: karnataka Page 1 of about 151 results (0.055 seconds)

Apr 17 1967 (HC)

Laxmi and anr. Vs. Krishna Bhatta and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1968Kant288; AIR1968Mys288

..... him. the ground on which the subordinate judge removed the charge was that the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956 does not authorise the creation o the charge. he was having in his mind the provisions of section 27 of that act which provides for the creation of a charge in the context of a dependant's claim for maintenance and appears to have been of the view that in ..... 1,270/-. the subordinate judge restricted the period for which arrears could be claimed as the period subsequent to december 21, 1956 when the hindu adoptions and maintenance act came into force. he must have thought that arrears were claimable only after that act came into force and not during the earlier period. for this assumption there was not the slightest justification laxmi made a ..... decree for future maintenance but enhanced the amount which had been awarded by the munsiff towards the past maintenance, to a sum of rs.1,270/- payable in respect of the period between december 21, 1956 when the hindu adoptions and maintenance act came into force and, the date of institution of the suit.(9) ..... rupees 760.10 p. but reached the conclusion that that sum of money was payable for the period of 1 year and 5 months commencing from december 21, 1956 when the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956 came into force.(8) in the appeal preferred by defendants 1 and 2 in which there was a cross-objection by rohini, the subordinate judge maintained the .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 18 2014 (HC)

Sri Siddagangaiah Vs. Sri N K Giriraja Shetty

Court : Karnataka

..... rsa263311 8. thopamma had instituted the suit in o.s. no.245/1968 for maintenance and creation of charge. at the first instance, so far as the right to claim maintenance, it is under section 18 of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956 [hereinafter referred to as the ham act for short]. that she sought for a maintenance from her husband. this statutory right is conferred upon her under sub ..... provision either under the ham act or any other provision of law that this right of maintenance could be a charge on the properties of her husband.9. now, so far as creation of charge, section 27 of the ham act provides the circumstances when maintenance could be a charge on the property and it reads; maintenance when to be a charge.-a dependant s claim for maintenance under this act shall not be a ..... charge on the estate of the deceased or any portion thereof, unless one has been created by the will of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 13 1966 (HC)

Govinda Reddi Vs. Union of India and anr.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : (1969)ILLJ493Kant; (1966)2MysLJ97

..... . so the plaintiff was entitled to no more than a reasonable opportunity such as the one to which art. 311 of the constitution refers. the charge of misconduct against him was that he displayed insubordination towards corporal bhan and used vituperative language against him. corporal bhan and prasad were the two witnesses ..... based. he could then demonstrate that the evidence produced does not establish the charges or that the punishment proposed in excessive. in the case before us the commanding officer who issued the show-cause notice was the very person who ..... 1954. a copy of the report which should normally be furnished to the government servant is what is necessary to enable him to adequately show-cause when he exercises the second opportunity which he can do only if he has knowledge of the materials on which the conclusions of the enquiring officers are ..... was that ex. d. 4 was submitted to the commanding officer who interviewed the plaintiff in his presence. the order made by the commanding officer on 27 july, 1954 deciding to discharge the plaintiff was preceded by that interview, during which the commanding officer must have listened to his representation. 21. the question ..... j., heard it, he referred it to a bench of two judges under the provisions of s. 6 of the mysore high court act since in his opinion the appeal involved an important question of law as to the applicability of the provisions of art. 311 of .....

Tag this Judgment!

Mar 11 1978 (HC)

Controller of Estate Duty, Karnataka Vs. Raghavendra Purnaiya

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : [1980]126ITR185(KAR); [1980]126ITR185(Karn)

..... the jahgirdar of yelandur. sub-section (4), however, provided that the succession to the said jahgirdar except in so far as otherwise provided in the act be regulated by ordinary rules governing the hindu law of inheritance and adoption of mysore. the succession to ..... to the said jahgirdar, and it is deemed expedient to remove such doubts and to make adequate provision for the maintenance of the dignity of the head of the family of the said dewan purnaiya and for the support of the ..... mysore regarding the manner in which the jahgirdar in question should be enjoyed by the descendants of dewan purnaiya. ultimately, when it was felt that it was advisable to make a law in relation to the administration, management and enjoyment of ..... duty proceedings consequent on the death of one nagaraja rao purnaiya (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') who died on april 27, 1960. the estate duty return was filed by the legal representatives of the deceased, namely, raghavendra rao purnaiya, malathi purnaiya ..... the jahgirdar of yelandur, for the time being, to encumber, charge, or in any manner alienate the said jahgirdar or any part thereof by act inter vivos or by testamentary dispositions. sub-section (2) defined the family of dewan purnaiya as comprising and ..... grant and till the year 1956 during which year, a notification dated october 2, 1956 was issued by the state government in exercise of its powers under sub-s. (1) of s. 3 of the inams abolition act. the notification had the effect .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 03 1987 (HC)

Ramanna Gowda and ors. Vs. Shankarappa and ors.

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR1988Kant248; ILR1988KAR1

..... that on the death of venkappagowda, ramannagowda was the only coparcener and the entire properties vested in him since the adoption had taken place on 24-11-1972 after the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956 came into force. therefore, the adopted son could not divest the properties vested in ramannagowda. on this reasoning, the learned judge rejected the prayer for partition ..... prosecute the suit as indigent persons and as they have succeeded the court-fee payable on the suit and the cross-objections shall be the first charge on the suit properties that would be allotted to their shares and be recovered by the deputy commissioner of the district. parties to bear their own ..... that the plaintiffs have not given the details of the properties mentioned in the 'b' schedule.9-5. however, with regard to items nos. 27 and 28 which are the vacant sites it is claimed by the defendants that they are not in their possession. the 1st defendant as it is ..... not given the details of the 'b' schedule properties also accurately. the defendants are not in possession of any vacant sites detailed as items nos. 27 and 28 in the plaint 'b' schedule. t he house in which the defendants are living was built by the l st defendant out of his ..... in old mysore area. at the time when the husband of the second plaintiff died in or about the year 1940, the mysore hindu law women's rights act (act no. 10/33) was in force. according to cl (d) of sub-sec.(l) of s. 8 of that act a widow of a deceased brother is .....

Tag this Judgment!

Oct 30 2008 (HC)

SiddalIn Gaiah (Since Dead, by His L.Rs Smt. Varadamma W/O Late Siddal ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR2009KAR2272; 2008(5)KCCR3546; 2009(1)AIRKarR410; AIR2009NOC888

..... also going into the first two substantial questions of law raised for consideration, does not arise.15. as for as the adoption deed is concerned, the submission made is that the adoption is said to have taken place in the year 1948, prior to coming into force of the hindu adoption & maintenance act, 1956 and, therefore, the trial court was justified in taking the view that the ..... the adoption deed.. even as regards the will, the findings of the trial court cannot be sustained as the circumstances pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellants will render the execution of the will suspicious.13. as far as the requirement of proving the will is concerned, the learned counsel referred to the relevant section of the indian succession act, 1956 to ..... point out that the will has not been proved in accordance with the provisions of section 63 of the indian succession act, 1956. in the right of the aforesaid contentions put forward, the learned, counsel for the appellants argued that ..... been produced as per exs.d-4 and p-89, the plaintiff i.e., chikkamma, challenged the said adoption deed only in the year 1988 when the present suit was filed on 27.7.1988 and, therefore, after a lapse of nearly 40 years, the adoption deed is being called in question and, as such, the declaration sought for by the plaintiff to cancel .....

Tag this Judgment!

Dec 09 2003 (HC)

Siddaramappa and ors. Vs. Smt. Gouravva

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : AIR2004Kant230; ILR2004KAR3611

..... as 'the act'), a statutory presumption do arise to the effect that the adoption has been made in compliance with the provisions of this act unless and until it is disproved and, therefore, when the defendants have proved the registered adoption deed, examined the attesting ..... and declared that the will and adoption set up are illegal and void.7. assailing the said judgment and decree of the trial court, the defendants have preferred this first appeal. learned senior counsel, sri v. tarakaram, for the appellant contended, once the deed of adoption is registered in accordance with law under section 16 of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956 (hereinafter for short referred to ..... as that of the trial court. therefore, it is clear that the evidence of none of these witnesses could be believed or is helpful regarding due execution of the will.27. even assuming that the evidence of dw 2, dw 4 and dw 7 who are the attesting witnesses who have spoken about the writing of the will, affixing the signature .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 29 2000 (HC)

Channakeshavaiah Vs. Smt. Lakshmi and Another

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2001CriLJ187; II(2001)DMC314; 2001(3)KarLJ458

..... maintained by her husband during her lifetime. sub-section (2) of section 18 provides that the hindu wife is entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her claim ..... to maintenance in the circumstances and cases covered by clauses (a) to (g) of sub-section (2) of section 18 and sub-section ..... contended that the award of maintenance of rs. 700/- is heavy as revision petitioner's income is not more than rs. 3,000/-.3. i have applied my mind to the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the revision petitioner.under section 18 of the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956, it has been provided that a hindu wife is entitled to be ..... if she is unchaste or ceases to be a hindu by conversion to another religion. it will be appropriate to quote section 18 in extenso. it reads as under:--'section 18. maintenance of wife.--(1) subject to the provisions of this section, a hindu wife, whether married before or after the commencement of this act, shall be entitled to be maintained by her .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 28 1991 (HC)

Society of Sisters of Charity Vs. Karnataka State Council for Child We ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : ILR1991KAR3543

..... to follow the procedure followed in bombay earlier as far as possible. but no case of hindu adoption has been brought to our notice. but this court had occasion to examine the claim of a hindu wife to seek independent right of adoption under section 7 of the hindu adoption and maintenance act as section 8 was discriminatory and therefore violative of article 14. one of us who dealt with ..... peculiar to india it appears to be almost an impossible task to have a common guideline or a code on the subject. for instance, when hindu adoption and maintenance act is operative and a hindu child is involved, the procedure for adoption would be governed by the relevant provisions of law in that and other allied laws and not by any executive order or observations made by ..... brought to the notice of the honourable court that the voluntary -coordinating agency - karnataka has not cleared this case. hence, we do not recommend child kavitha for inter-country adoption.date: 27-12-1989place: bangaloresd/-vibha singhsecurity officerkarnataka state council for child welfare bangaloresd/-vice presidentkarnataka state councilfor child welfare bangalore.' from the concluding paragraph, it is evident that the council which .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 10 2007 (HC)

Siddamma W/O Ninganagouda Patil Vs. Rayanagouda S/O Basanagouda Patil ...

Court : Karnataka

Reported in : 2008(3)KarLJ549; 2007(4)KCCR2533

..... to be not maintainable. 15. coming to the relief claimed by the plaintiff, the learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on section 12(c) of the hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956 to contend that the plaintiff is to be treated as the adopted son of the defendant. since siddamma's husband ninganagowda died, the suit properties vested in the name of siddamma and consequent to ..... the court below is justified in decreeing the suit when admittedly the plaintiff was adopted under a registered deed after the properties in question was vested with the defendant after the death of her husband and whether such vesting could be diverted by virtue of the adoption, in view of section 12(c) of the hindu adoption and maintenance act?ii) whether the present suit filed by the ..... effected on 23.10.1975 and the said document being registered as adoption deed, the presumption under section 16 of the hindu adoption act, 1956 will have to be drawn in favour of it. both the courts below have also arrived at concurrent findings on facts with regard to the adoption being valid under law. therefore when such is the finding of the courts below with regard to ..... plaintiff, the present suit therefore came to be filed. in such circumstances, it cannot be said that the cause of action is one and the same in both the suits. when once it is concluded that the cause of action are different in earlier suit and the present one, then the observation made by the apex court in the case of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //