Skip to content


Velammal and anr. Vs. Vavammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1910)20MLJ349
AppellantVelammal and anr.
RespondentVavammal and ors.
Cases ReferredSuryanarayana Murthi v. Sammama I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- 1. we do not think the suit is barred by limitation so far as the prayer is for a declaration that the decree on the hypothecation does not bind the share of the plaintiffs. that decree was passed within six years before the institution of the suit.2. nor can we accede to the contention that the suit for a declaration is barred by section 42 of the specific relief act. the plaintiffs ask in substance that it may be declared as against the hypothecation that the decree is not binding on their share in the property and the fact that they have impleaded the other sharers does not make it obligatory on them to sue for a general partition. we do not think the decision in suryanarayana murthi v. sammama i.l.r. (1901) m. 504 compels us to hold otherwise.3. the second appeal is dismissed with.....
Judgment:

1. We do not think the suit is barred by limitation so far as the prayer is for a declaration that the decree on the hypothecation does not bind the share of the plaintiffs. That decree was passed within six years before the institution of the suit.

2. Nor can we accede to the contention that the suit for a declaration is barred by Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The plaintiffs ask in substance that it may be declared as against the hypothecation that the decree is not binding on their share in the property and the fact that they have impleaded the other sharers does not make it obligatory on them to sue for A general partition. We do not think the decision in Suryanarayana Murthi v. Sammama I.L.R. (1901) M. 504 compels us to hold otherwise.

3. The second appeal is dismissed with costs.


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