Skip to content


Togaram Appadu Patnaidu Vs. Togaram Venkata Ranga Rau and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ23
AppellantTogaram Appadu Patnaidu
RespondentTogaram Venkata Ranga Rau and ors.
Cases Referred and Latchmanan Chetty v. Ramanathan Chetty I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - 1. we agree with the district judge that the plaintiff has failed to prove the reunion after partition, on which the suit is based. 129. as it is still open to the plaintiff to obtain his share in the joint family property in the former suit, we are clearly of opinion that it is not open to him to bring a fresh suit for the partition of the joint family property......under these circumstances no question as to the execution of the decree has yet arisen and the district judge is still bound to pass the final decree under section 396 which he may do even without the application of the parties - mallikarjunadu setti v. lingamurti pantulu and others i.l.r. (1902) m. 277 dwarka nath misser v. barinda nath i.l.r (1895) c. 425 and latchmanan chetty v. ramanathan chetty i.l.r. (1904) m. 129. as it is still open to the plaintiff to obtain his share in the joint family property in the former suit, we are clearly of opinion that it is not open to him to bring a fresh suit for the partition of the joint family property.3. as regards the property which in the previous suit was found to be the self-acquisition of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff has not.....
Judgment:

1. We agree with the District Judge that the plaintiff has failed to prove the reunion after partition, on which the suit is based. The decree in the former suit included land not paying revenue to Government and there has been no partition by metes and bounds effected under Section. 396, Civil Procedure Code, so that the final decree contemplated by that section has not yet been passed.

2. Under these circumstances no question as to the execution of the decree has yet arisen and the District Judge is still bound to pass the final decree under Section 396 which he may do even without the application of the parties - Mallikarjunadu Setti v. Lingamurti Pantulu and others I.L.R. (1902) M. 277 Dwarka Nath Misser v. Barinda Nath I.L.R (1895) C. 425 and Latchmanan Chetty v. Ramanathan Chetty I.L.R. (1904) M. 129. As it is still open to the plaintiff to obtain his share in the joint family property in the former suit, we are clearly of opinion that it is not open to him to bring a fresh suit for the partition of the joint family property.

3. As regards the property which in the previous suit was found to be the self-acquisition of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff has not sued in the present suit to recover his share of the succession and he cannot obtain any such relief in this suit.

4. In the result, we agree with the District Judge and dismiss the appeal with costs.


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