Skip to content


Ponnammal Vs. Ratnam Asari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1903)13MLJ144
AppellantPonnammal
RespondentRatnam Asari
Excerpt:
- .....than six years after the defendant took possession of the property and is, therefore, barred by article 119, schedule 2 indian limitation act, in accordance with the decision of the majority of the bench of this court in the connected appeal suit no. 52 of 1900. 13 m.l.j. r. 27.2. we, therefore, allow the appeal, and reversing the decree of the lower court, we dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.
Judgment:

1. We cannot agree with the Subordinate Judge that the suit is governed by Article 142 of the Indian Limitation Act as the plaintiff cannot make out a title otherwise than as an adopted son. The appellant took possession of the plaint property in 1891 by virtue of a deed of gift in her favour executed by her mother professedly in obedience to a testamentary direction given by her late husband. The plaintiff had already been adopted by her in 1886, and she did not execute the deed of gift as his guardian. It is found that no such testamentary direction was given by the adoptive father and, that being so, the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the property as his adopted son and the possession taken by the defendant under the deed of gift was a direct interference with the right of the plaintiff as the adopted son, The suit was brought more than six years after the defendant took possession of the property and is, therefore, barred by Article 119, schedule 2 Indian Limitation Act, in accordance with the decision of the majority of the Bench of this Court in the connected Appeal suit No. 52 of 1900. 13 M.L.J. R. 27.

2. We, therefore, allow the appeal, and reversing the decree of the lower Court, we dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs throughout.


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