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

Ennis, De Sampayo A., JJ
SAPAPATHIPILLAI


Advocates:
The plaintiff appealed.
Bartholomeusz, for appellant, cited Chitty on Contracts 154; Nathan, vol. II., ss. 749 and 852.
No appearance for respondent.

Sapapathipillai V. Tirumanchanam

Present: Ennis J. and De Sampayo A. J.

SAPAPATHIPILLAI v. TIRUMANCHANAM.

329-D. C. Batticaloa, 3, 653.

Deaf and dumb person-Capacity to execute deed of conveyance.

A deed executed by a deaf and dumb person was held to be good.

IN this case the plaintiff and appellant, claiming to be the owner of an undivided 111/120 share of a piece of land called Tirappu Valavu, sought to partition it in this suit against the minor defendant Kandavanam Thirumanchanam, appearing by his guardian ad litem the defendant and first respondent. The defendant filed answer admitting the correctness of the share allotted to the minor, but alleged that deed No. 2, 073 dated August 1, 1912 (P 3), which was executed by his stepdaughter Sanmugam Sinnatangam, who was deaf and dumb, and another, was inoperative in Jaw to pass title to the plaintiff for her 29/120 share of the land which the deed purported to convey.

The learned District Judge thereon caused notice to issue to the above-named Sanmugam Sinnatangam, and she was made an added defendant. She failed to file answer.

At the trial the District Judge (T. W. Roberts, Esq. ) tested Sinnatangam's capacity 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