Skip to content


Keshavan and anr. Vs. Vasudevan and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad297
AppellantKeshavan and anr.
RespondentVasudevan and anr.
Cases ReferredTottacara Muttoor Manakel Naraina Nambudripad v. Puvally Manakel Tirvikrama Nambudripad
Excerpt:
malabar law - nambudri brahmans--introduction of stranger to perpetuate existence of illam--evidence--pymaish accounts. - - and it is denied that the tamarasheri illam enjoyed the uraima right now claimed, but there was also oral evidence, and in the munsif's court the dispute was not that an illam bearing that name had no uraima right, but that the illam which the first respondent claims to represent was not the tamarasheri illam which enjoyed the right. and if this be so, such person would prima facie be entitled to hold the property held by the illam as trustee as well as to enjoy the property held by the illam as its own......to establish a right which is denied; and it is denied that the tamarasheri illam enjoyed the uraima right now claimed, but there was also oral evidence, and in the munsif's court the dispute was not that an illam bearing that name had no uraima right, but that the illam which the first respondent claims to represent was not the tamarasheri illam which enjoyed the right.2. the decision of the sadr court in tottacara muttoor manakel naraina nambudripad v. puvally manakel tirvikrama nambudripad 1855 m.s.d. 125 is an authority for holding that a person may be introduced into an illam to perpetuate its existence and that he thereby becomes a member of the illam; and if this be so, such person would prima facie be entitled to hold the property held by the illam as trustee as well as to.....
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The pymaish [Survey measurement-Wilson] alone is not sufficient evidence to establish a right which is denied; and it is denied that the Tamarasheri illam enjoyed the uraima right now claimed, but there was also oral evidence, and in the Munsif's Court the dispute was not that an illam bearing that name had no uraima right, but that the illam which the first respondent claims to represent was not the Tamarasheri illam which enjoyed the right.

2. The decision of the Sadr Court in Tottacara Muttoor Manakel Naraina Nambudripad v. Puvally Manakel Tirvikrama Nambudripad 1855 M.S.D. 125 is an authority for holding that a person may be introduced into an illam to perpetuate its existence and that he thereby becomes a member of the illam; and if this be so, such person would prima facie be entitled to hold the property held by the illam as trustee as well as to enjoy the property held by the illam as its own.

3. The Subordinate Judge finds that the first respondent had been introduced into, and appointed, a member of the illam in accordance with a prevailing custom, and we are not prepared to hold that he was not entitled to come to that conclusion.

4. The appellants do not show that a person so appointed and introduced would not be entitled to exercise a uraima right. As to the fourth ground of appeal, the property has been recovered for the devasam and the rights of the uralars who contested the first respondent's claim are not prejudiced by the decree. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //