Skip to content


Saminatha Pandaram Vs. Kuppu Udayan - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in(1903)13MLJ471
AppellantSaminatha Pandaram
RespondentKuppu Udayan
Excerpt:
- .....auction.2. the first objection is that the allowance that the defendant had to pay to his sister was an allowance for her maintenance, and therefore this suit as being one relating to maintenance is not cognizable by a court of small causes. the allowance, however, was not made to the defendant's sister by way of satisfaction of her right to maintenance ; she had no such right. the allowance was to be paid out of the income of her own property which she was making over to the defendant. it was therefore, in the nature of an annuity.3. the petition is dismissed with costs,[this judgment was subsequently confirmed in l.p.a. no. 46 of 1902 by mr. justice benson and mr. justice bhashyam aiyangar: ed.]
Judgment:

1. The suit is to enforce the payment by the defendant of a certain quantity of paddy, that the defendant is liable under Exhibit A to pay to his sister whose right the plaintiff has bought in court auction.

2. The first objection is that the allowance that the defendant had to pay to his sister was an allowance for her maintenance, and therefore this suit as being one relating to maintenance is not cognizable by a Court of Small Causes. The allowance, however, was not made to the defendant's sister by way of satisfaction of her right to maintenance ; she had no such right. The allowance was to be paid out of the income of her own property which she was making over to the defendant. It was therefore, in the nature of an annuity.

3. The petition is dismissed with costs,

[This judgment was subsequently confirmed in L.P.A. No. 46 of 1902 by Mr. Justice Benson and Mr. Justice Bhashyam Aiyangar: ED.]


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