Skip to content


Minakshi Ammal Vs. Kalianarama Bayer - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1897)ILR20Mad349
AppellantMinakshi Ammal
RespondentKalianarama Bayer
Cases ReferredKumbalinga Pillai v. Ariaputra Padiachi I.L.R.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code - act xiv of 1882, sections 317, 244--purchase by a benamidar with funds belonging to a joint hindu family--right of member of family not being a party to benami transaction to sue for his share. - - 1. the subordinate judge has given excellent reasons founded on clear documentary and oral evidence, for his conclusion that the transfers to the sixth defendant were benami for the family of the plaintiff and defendants nos......in the finding of the subordinate judge on this issue. as to the effect of section 317 of the civil procedure code with regard to the plaintiff's right to maintain the present suit to recover his share of the family property, we observe that the present case is governed by the decision in natesa v. venkatramayyan i.l.r. 6 mad. 135 . that case is exactly on all fours with the present case, and has not been overruled or dissented from in the cases referred to by the appellant's vakil--bamu, kurup v. sridevi i.l.r. 16 mad. 290 sankunni nayar v. narayanan nambudri i.l.r. 17 mad. 282 kumbalinga pillai v. ariaputra padiachi i.l.r. 18 mad. 436 .2. lastly, on the finding that the sixth defendant was not the real transferee of the decree, no question as to the effect of section 244, civil.....
Judgment:

1. The Subordinate Judge has given excellent reasons founded on clear documentary and oral evidence, for his conclusion that the transfers to the sixth defendant were benami for the family of the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 3. These reasons have not been shown to be incorrect in the argument before us. We concur in the finding of the Subordinate Judge on this issue. As to the effect of Section 317 of the Civil Procedure Code with regard to the plaintiff's right to maintain the present suit to recover his share of the family property, we observe that the present case is governed by the decision in Natesa v. Venkatramayyan I.L.R. 6 Mad. 135 . That case is exactly on all fours with the present case, and has not been overruled or dissented from in the cases referred to by the appellant's vakil--Bamu, Kurup v. Sridevi I.L.R. 16 Mad. 290 Sankunni Nayar v. Narayanan Nambudri I.L.R. 17 Mad. 282 Kumbalinga Pillai v. Ariaputra Padiachi I.L.R. 18 Mad. 436 .

2. Lastly, on the finding that the sixth defendant was not the real transferee of the decree, no question as to the effect of Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, on the plaintiff's right to maintain this suit can arise. We must, therefore, confirm the decree of the Subordinate Judge and dismiss this appeal with costs.


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