Skip to content


Alamelu Vs. Rangasami and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1883)ILR7Mad588
AppellantAlamelu
RespondentRangasami and anr.
Excerpt:
hindu law - settlement by coparcener on wife--purchaser for value--bight to partition. - .....if a purchaser for value purchases the interest of an undivided coparcener who dies before partition is effected, the contract nevertheless takes effect and the purchaser may apply for partition. we, therefore, hold the appellant was entitled to a decree for partition, and reversing the decrees of the court of first instance and of the appellate court we decree the claim with costs. mesne profits to be ascertained in execution of the decree.
Judgment:

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. Assuming that the finding is right and that there was no division between the brothers, it has to be considered whether such a settlement as that which the appellant has proved can take effect as against the undivided interest of the settlor.

2. It bras been held in this Presidency that such an interest will pass to a purchaser for value, or rather that a purchaser for value has the same right to call for a partition which the seller has.

3. A post-nuptial settlement executed in pursuance of an ante-nuptial agreement in consideration of marriage is equivalent to a sale. If then the settlement on which the appellant relies was executed in pursuance of an antenuptial contract made in pursuance of marriage (it is immaterial whether it was made with her or with her father) the appellant cannot be in a worse position than a purchaser for value, and the question arises whether a purchaser for value of the interest of an undivided coparcener loses all benefit of his purchase if no partition is made or entered on during the lifetime of the settlor.

4. If a purchaser for value purchases the interest of an undivided coparcener who dies before partition is effected, the contract nevertheless takes effect and the purchaser may apply for partition. We, therefore, hold the appellant was entitled to a decree for partition, and reversing the decrees of the Court of First Instance and of the Appellate Court we decree the claim with costs. Mesne profits to be ascertained in execution of the decree.


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