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

1940 Supreme(Mad) 164

HORWILL
Sri Rajah Yenumala Latchanna Dora Varu – Appellant
Versus
Sri Rajah Yenumala Mallu Dora Varu – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Horwill, J.

1. The plaintiff brought the present suit against his brother and his father for the B schedule properties which, he said, were allotted to him in accordance with an agreement. In the alternative, he prayed for partition. The defendants case is that the property is for the most part his self-acquired property and that the only property to which the plaintiff is entitled is that in Schedule I. During the pendency of the suit the plaintiff made an application to the Court for an interim maintenance of Rs. 800 a month. The learned District, Judge has awarded Rs. 250 a month.

2. The plaintiff is not entitled to an order of the nature passed. In Maharaj Kumar Gopal Saran Narayan Singh v. Sita Debi (1923) 77 I.C. 718, a Divisional Bench of the Patna High Court held that a Court has no inherent power under Section 151 to pass such an order. That case was very like the present, in that the plaintiff sued on a maintenance agreement, and only differed from it in that the defendant there did not admit that the plaintiff was entitled to anything. Here, the defendant does admit that the plaintiff is entitled to something; but he does not admit that the plaintiff is entitled to




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