Skip to content


Manika Gramani Vs. Ellappa Chetti - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR19Mad271
AppellantManika Gramani
RespondentEllappa Chetti
Excerpt:
hindu law - mortgage--pendency of maintenance suit--'lis pendens'--transfer of property act--act iv of 1882, section 52. - .....in original suit no. 34 of 1888 to show that the then plaintiff desired to charge the present plaint property with her maintenance. she merely enumerated it and the other property of the then defendant in order to enable the court to determine what amount of maintenance might fairly be given. there was not then any right to immoveable property directly and specifically in question, and consequently the doctrine of lis pendens has no application.4. it would obviously be most inconvenient, if a man, no matter what his wealth might be, should be debarred from dealing with any of his immoveable property, merely because a suit for a petty sum as maintenance, not sought to be charged on any specific part of his property, were pending at the time.5. we concur in the findings of the lower.....
Judgment:

1. The only point urged in appeal is that the decision of the lower Court on the first and second issues is incorrect.

2. The lower Court has dealt fully with the evidence in regard to the first issue, and we concur in the finding.

3. As regards the second issue we are also of opinion that the finding is correct. There is nothing in the plaint in Original Suit No. 34 of 1888 to show that the then plaintiff desired to charge the present plaint property with her maintenance. She merely enumerated it and the other property of the then defendant in order to enable the Court to determine what amount of maintenance might fairly be given. There was not then any right to immoveable property directly and specifically in question, and consequently the doctrine of lis pendens has no application.

4. It would obviously be most inconvenient, if a man, no matter what his wealth might be, should be debarred from dealing with any of his immoveable property, merely because a suit for a petty sum as maintenance, not sought to be charged on any specific part of his property, were pending at the time.

5. We concur in the findings of the lower Court and dismiss this appeal with costs.


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