DAVIES, A.J.COLLINS, S.AIYAR
Seeni Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Santhauathan Chettiar – Respondent
Collins, C.J.
1. This Second Appeal No. 319 of 1894 was originally heard before SHEPHARD and BEST, J.J., and those learned Judges disagreed in the conclusion they arrived at; and in consequence of BEST, J., having left the Court, the Letters Patent appeal had to be heard before three other Judges.
2.The principal point in dispute was whether the yadast, dated 1st January 1891,created an interest in immoveable property, and, if so, whether it could be used as evidence, not being registered. The yadast is as follows: "In respect of the transaction of business heretofore taken on contract from Madura Pattamars in fasli 1294 by me and A.N. Meenakshisundaram Settiar Avergal, I have paid, on 16th December 1890 in current fasli 1300, value for the said Meenakshisundaram Settiar half share, excluding my share, in the karuvela, velvala, margosa and manjanati trees, etc., in Pattambudur tank to the north of the said village, and in the gum (resin),karuvela nuts, grass, korai, etc., standing thereon; and been enjoying the same till this day. As I have settled a value of Rs. 3,400 for the said two shares, so that you may cut and enjoy the trees, etc., and the grass, korai, gum, karuvela
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.