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

1934 Supreme(Mad) 225

WALSH
Kizhiakalathil Puthan Veetil Thavazhi Karnavan – Appellant
Versus
Manikat Variath Ukkali Varissiars son Sankunni – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Walsh, J.

1. The legal representative of plaintiff 2 in the suit is the appellant in this Court. Under Ex. B dated 26th Juno 1919 plaintiff 2 got a melcharth of the suit property from plaintiff 1, the sthani. The previous demisee, who was defendant 1, had a kanom, which did not expire till 1922. Plaintiff 1 (the sthani) and plaintiff 2 waited till the expiry of the previous demise and then instituted a suit for redemption. Defendant 1 transferred his rights to defendant 2, who is now the principal contesting defendant and he impugned the validity of the melcharth and in the alternative claimed reclamation expenses in case the melcharth be found good. During the pendency of the suit plaintiff 1 died and defendant 15 came on the record as his legal representative. He did not prosecute the suit but contented himself with appearing as a defendant and disputed the validity of the melcharth Ex. 13, and he further executed a renewal in favour of defendant 2. During the pendency of the appeal defendant 15 died and his legal representative came on the record as respondent 20. He supported the appellant and impugned the kanom granted by defendant 15 to defendant 2. The Court of first










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