Skip to content


Anantan Vs. Sankaran and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1891)ILR14Mad101
AppellantAnantan
RespondentSankaran and ors.
Cases ReferredPachamuthu v. Chinnappan I.L.R.
Excerpt:
malabar law - suit by junior members of a tarwad--suit for declaration of invalidity of kanom--limitation. - - the karnavan is included as a defendant in the suit, and, as he has failed to sue till the period of twelve years has almost expired, we are of opinion that the suit by the junior members cannot be validly objected to......it is contended, in the first instance, that the suit brought by the junior members of a tarwad is not maintainable. the karnavan is included as a defendant in the suit, and, as he has failed to sue till the period of twelve years has almost expired, we are of opinion that the suit by the junior members cannot be validly objected to.2. the other question is whether the suit is time-barred3. applying the principle of the decision of this court in pachamuthu v. chinnappan i.l.r. 10 mad. 213 and the decision of the calcutta high court in rughuba dyal sahuv. bhikya lai misser i.l.r. 12 cal. 69, we find the lower appellate court is right in holding the suit to be not time-barred.4. the lower courts have found, as a fact, that the money was not advanced for tarwad necessity.5. this second.....
Judgment:

1. It is contended, in the first instance, that the suit brought by the junior members of a tarwad is not maintainable. The karnavan is included as a defendant in the suit, and, as he has failed to sue till the period of twelve years has almost expired, we are of opinion that the suit by the junior members cannot be validly objected to.

2. The other question is whether the suit is time-barred

3. Applying the principle of the decision of this Court in Pachamuthu v. Chinnappan I.L.R. 10 Mad. 213 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rughuba Dyal Sahuv. Bhikya Lai Misser I.L.R. 12 Cal. 69, we find the lower Appellate Court is right in holding the suit to be not time-barred.

4. The lower Courts have found, as a fact, that the money was not advanced for tarwad necessity.

5. This second appeal fails, therefore, and is dismissed with costs.


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