Skip to content


Sivada Balarami Reddi Vs. Sivada Pera Reddi and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR6Mad267
AppellantSivada Balarami Reddi
RespondentSivada Pera Reddi and ors.
Excerpt:
illatam, custom of - inheritance. - section 16 (1) (c) :[tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] ready and willing to perform-concurrent findings of fact on consideration of evidence on record that appellants-buyers were not ready and willing to perform terms and conditions of agreement for sale - buyers failing to pay balance consideration before agitating matter before supreme court held, concurrent finding cannot be interfered with. section 20: [tarun chatterjee & aftab alam,jj] whether time is the essence of contract held, many instance in contract which repeatedly showed that time was to be of essence of contract were specifically mentioned. clear condition in contract that purchasers would have to definitely deposit balance amount by date stipulated in contract for sale show that..........defendant, who had been taken in illatam after the division between his father and uncle, had a right to share in the estate of the uncle that had devolved after the death of the father. we agree that the karar. in releasing the first defendant's right to share in the property of the family extended only to the property of his immediate family, and not to his rights in that of the divided uncle. the circumstances that a karar was considered necessary to preclude the first defendant from succeeding in his immediate family is evidence that, without it, in the opinion of those concerned, he would have succeeded, notwithstanding the custom of illatom; and this tends to show that that custom does not affect existing rights of property of the person taken in illatom. first defendant,.....
Judgment:

1. The burden lay on plaintiff of showing that first defendant by being taken into another family, otherwise than by adoption, had lost his rights of succession in his own family. The Judge reports that plaintiff is unwilling to undertake to establish by further evidence the custom for which he contends.

2. The evidence already taken justified the conclusion arrived at that the first defendant, who had been taken in Illatam after the division between his father and uncle, had a right to share in the estate of the uncle that had devolved after the death of the father. We agree that the karar. in releasing the first defendant's right to share in the property of the family extended only to the property of his immediate family, and not to his rights in that of the divided uncle. The circumstances that a Karar was considered necessary to preclude the first defendant from succeeding in his immediate family is evidence that, without it, in the opinion of those concerned, he would have succeeded, notwithstanding the custom of Illatom; and this tends to show that that custom does not affect existing rights of property of the person taken in Illatom. First defendant, therefore, was rightly adjudged a one-fourth share. We dismiss the appeal with costs.


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