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

1925 Supreme(Mad) 118

DEVADOSS
Viswanatha Mudali – Appellant
Versus
Doraiswami Mudali – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Devadoss, J.

1. The plaintiffs sue for a declaration that the sale of the plaint property in favour of defendants 1 and 2 is not binding on them as they are the reversioners of one Murugesa Mudali. They claim to he the grandsons of Muthusami Mudali, the divided brother of Kachi Muniappa Mudali, whose great-grandson was the deceased Murugesa Mudali. The District Munsif held that Muthusami Mudali and Kachi Muniappa Mudali being the sons of a prostitute there was no heritable blood between them and the plaintiffs had no reversionary right to the estate of Murugesa Mudali and dismissed the suit. The Subordinate Judge has reversed the decree of the District Munsif holding that the plaintiffs are reversionary heirs to Murugesa Mudali and has remanded the suit for disposal on the merits. Defendants 1 and 2 have preferred this appeal.

2. Muthuswami Mudali and Kachi Muniappa Mudali were the? sons of a dancing woman called Thanji Ammal. It is admitted that the plaintiffs are the legitimate grandsons of Muthuswami Mudali and that Murugesa Mudali was the legitimate great grandson of Kachi Muniappa Mudali. The question for decision is, does the rule of collateral succession obtain among t





























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