Skip to content


Bhaskruni Kesavarayadu Vs. Bhaskaruni Chalapatirayadu - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal;Family
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1908)18MLJ343
AppellantBhaskruni Kesavarayadu
RespondentBhaskaruni Chalapatirayadu
Cases ReferredSri Mohan Thakur v. Narsing Mohan Thakur I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - none of them are cases like the present of a co-parcenary under the mitakshara law, in which the managing member has a recognized position of superiority with well-defined rights of management and possession independent of the consent of the other members of the family. mayne, in para 292 of the 7th edition of his hindu law, when discussing the mode in which the joint family property is to be enjoyed by the co-parceners says:.....hindu family that owns the property in dispute, and that, as such, he is in possession of the joint family property. we think that the view taken in sri mohan thakur v. narsing mohan thakur i.l.r. (1899) c. 259 is correct. the cases quoted by the petitioner are all either cases; of co-trustees or of ordinary partners in which the rights of each trustee or partner are equal. none of them are cases like the present of a co-parcenary under the mitakshara law, in which the managing member has a recognized position of superiority with well-defined rights of management and possession independent of the consent of the other members of the family.2. mr. mayne, in para 292 of the 7th edition of his hindu law, when discussing the mode in which the joint family property is to be enjoyed by the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

1. The finding is that the counter-petitioner is the managing member of the joint Hindu family that owns the property in dispute, and that, as such, he is in possession of the joint family property. We think that the view taken in Sri Mohan Thakur v. Narsing Mohan Thakur I.L.R. (1899) C. 259 is correct. The cases quoted by the petitioner are all either cases; of co-trustees or of ordinary partners in which the rights of each trustee or partner are equal. None of them are cases like the present of a co-parcenary under the Mitakshara law, in which the managing member has a recognized position of superiority with well-defined rights of management and possession independent of the consent of the other members of the family.

2. Mr. Mayne, in para 292 of the 7th edition of his Hindu Law, when discussing the mode in which the joint family property is to be enjoyed by the co-parceners says: 'In Malabar and Canara the head of the family is entitled to its entire possession and is absolute in its management, 'and also that' a family governed by the Mitakshara Law is in a very similar position except as to their rights to a partition and to an account as incident to that right.' We do not see why a manager of a joint family should, not be protected in his possession by proceedings under Section 145, Criminal Procedure Code.

3. We, therefore, hold that the Magistrate has jurisdiction to act under that section, and this Court has no jurisdiction to interfere. We dismiss the petition.


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