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

1892 Supreme(Mad) 111

M.AYYAR, BEST
Muttuvaduganatha Tevar – Appellant
Versus
Periasami – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Muttusami Ayyar, J.

1. The contest in this appeal is as to the right of succession to the zamindari of Shivagunga. Dora Singha Tevar was the last male holder, respondent is his son and appellant is the son of Kattama Natchi-yar, Dora Singhas predecessor, Appellant is related to the istimrar zamindar as daughters son and respondent as the son of a senior daughters son. The question for determination is whether, under the Mitakshara law, succession is to be traced from the last male holder or the istimrar zamindar. The first and third to sixth issues recorded in this case relate rather to the different grounds on which appellant presses his claim than to independent questions.

2. As regards the first issue, viz., whether succession is to be traced from the last male holder or his maternal grandfather, appellants contention is that when a person succeeds to an obstructed heritage, that person is not, whether a male or female, a full owner. There is, however, no warrant for it in the Mitakshara. The general rule of Hindu law is that when a male heir succeeds a male owner, the former is as much full owner as the latter, the principle being, as stated by Manu in chapter IX, verse 1














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