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

1944 Supreme(Mad) 159

SOMAYYA
Munaganoori Ramayya died – Appellant
Versus
Idamakanty Veerabhadrachari – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Somayya, J.

1. Two sons of a daughter of the last male holder filed the suit out of which this appeal arises for setting aside an alienation made by the limited owner and for recovery of possession. The elder of the two attained majority more than three years before suit, but the younger was a minor until within three years before the suit. The question is whether the suit is barred by limitation either as regards both or at least as regards the elder.

2. The learned advocate for the defendants-appellants contends that the right which the plaintiffs seek to enforce in this suit is not a joint right within Section 7, Limitation Act. It is also said that the elder of them could give a discharge on behalf of the younger. The last point may be taken up first. The property in question devolved on the two grandsons with mutual rights of survivorship as held by the Judicial Committee in Venkayamma Garu v. Venkataramanayyamma Bahadur (1902) 25 Mad. 678. But as the Judicial Committee explained the position in the later decision in Mohamed Husain Khan v. Kishva Nandan Sahi the right which descends to a daughters son is not such as would enable a son of the latter to claim a right by bi

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