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

1971 Supreme(Mad) 69

K.VEERASWAMI, RAGHAVAN
Chinnappavu Naidu – Appellant
Versus
Meenakshi Ammal – Respondent


Advocates:
K.S. Desikan and K. Raman, for Appellant; O.V. Balusami and O.V. Natesan, for Respondents.

Judgement

K. VEERASWAMI, C. J. :- This second appeal raises an interesting point as to whether after the Hindu Succession Act. 1956, the disqualification imposed by Section 2 of the Hindu Widows' Re-marriage Act, 1856, continues to have force. The Courts below held that the former Act prevails. On a careful consideration we accept that view. The first plaintiff was the widow of the defendant's brother. Her husband died in 1955. Thereafter she remarried. The defendant was alleged to have trespassed upon the property to which the first plaintiff had succeeded as the heir to her husband and on that claim, she asked for a declaration of her title to the suit properties and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering. She also asked for mesne profits in the sum of Rs. 8000, being according to her, the value of 80 bags of paddy cut and carried away by him. The lower appellate court while accepting the decree of the trial court declaring the title of the first plaintiff, remitted the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal after the determination of mesne profits. It directed that an issue should be framed on that question and that the parties should be at liberty to di



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