Skip to content


Sura Vittil Vayanda Valappil Kunhi MoidIn and ors. Vs. Kypatt Ambu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1896)6MLJ764
AppellantSura Vittil Vayanda Valappil Kunhi MoidIn and ors.
RespondentKypatt Ambu and ors.
Cases ReferredNarayanan v. Kannan I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- .....to the nature of the title created by mayan kutti and others in favour of the plaintiff's father, kadar kutti. it was. argued on the one hand that kadar kutti and the fellow donees took the property as tenants in common, each being entitled to deal with his own share of it, and in support of that view the case reported in narayanan v. kantian i.l.r. (1881) m. 315 and cases following it were citeo. on the other hand it was contended that the subordinate judge was right in holding that the donees taking under exhibit, i took the property as tarwad property and that therefore no one of them could deal with any part of it as his own. we are disposed to think that the principle laid down in sreemutty rabutty dossee v. sibchunder mullick (1851) 6 m.i.a. 1 and mahomed sumsool v. shewukram.....
Judgment:

1. The question argued in these appeals had regard to the nature of the title created by Mayan Kutti and others in favour of the plaintiff's father, Kadar Kutti. It was. argued on the one hand that Kadar Kutti and the fellow donees took the property as tenants in common, each being entitled to deal with his own share of it, and in support of that view the case reported in Narayanan v. Kantian I.L.R. (1881) M. 315 and cases following it were citeo. On the other hand it was contended that the Subordinate Judge was right in holding that the donees taking under Exhibit, I took the property as tarwad property and that therefore no one of them could deal with any part of it as his own. We are disposed to think that the principle laid down in Sreemutty Rabutty Dossee v. Sibchunder Mullick (1851) 6 M.I.A. 1 and Mahomed Sumsool v. Shewukram (1874) L.R. 2 IndAp 14 is applicable to the present case. The decision however in Narayanan v. Kannan I.L.R. (1881) M. 315 appears to be in conflict with that principle and we reserved judgment in order to see whether a reference to the Full Bench was necessary but we think that the appeal may be disposed of without any such [741] reference. Even assuming that Kadar Kutti. did take a share in the property which it was competent to him to deal with individually, his sons claiming by gift under him could not recover in the present suit, inasmuch as it is not in the nature of a partition suit and the co-doness of Kadar Kutti are not joined.

2. We dismiss these appeals with costs.


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