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

1936 Supreme(Mad) 280

PANDRANG ROW
Marina Mangamma – Appellant
Versus
Mutyala Dorayya – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Pandrang Row, J.

1. In this Letters Patent Appeal the only question for us to decide is whether the view adopted by Varadachariar, J., namely, that in the absence of direct evidence one way or the other there is no presumption as to the quantum of interest which a Hindu female takes in respect of immovable property given to her, is right or not.

2. The case is one in which during the partition in the lifetime of the father one of the shares was given to the widowed daughter who had no children. The plaintiffs claim that the properties were given to her for life only as maintenance and the daughter claims that they were given to her as an absolute estate with full powers of alienation. The suit was one to declare that the deed of gift executed by the widow in favour of certain of her nephews is not valid and binding on the plaintiffs after her death. It would appear that the lower appellate Court, that is, the Subordinate Judge, was under the impression that there was a presumption in favour of the widow in a case like this and that the burden of proving that the properties were given to the first defendant only for her life was upon the plaintiffs. Varadachariar, J., however,

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