Skip to content


Kota Balabadra Patro Vs. Khetra Doss and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported in25Ind.Cas.401; (1916)31MLJ275
AppellantKota Balabadra Patro
RespondentKhetra Doss and ors.
Cases Referred and Hardi Narain Sahu v. Ruder Perkash Misser I.L.R.
Excerpt:
- - 626, clearly bear out this view of the hindu law. the respondents will pay the costs in this court as well as in the district court......subject. the judicial committee's rulings in suraj bunsi koer v. sheo persad singh i.l.r. (1879) c. 148 and hardi narain sahu v. ruder perkash misser i.l.r. (1883) c. 626, clearly bear out this view of the hindu law. the learned vakil for the respondents has referred to some rulings of the bombay high court but it is not necessary to consider them here as there has been a uniform course of decisions in this presidency laying down that an alienee from a hindu co-parcener does not thereby acquire the rights of a tenant-in-common, such as, to possession and to mesne profits. reliance was also placed on section 44 of the transfer of property act but the rule enunciated there does not override the hindu law.2. the result will be the decree of the district judge will be set aside and there.....
Judgment:

1. The question in this appeal is whether an alienee of a co-parcener in a joint Hindu family is entitled to possession of the alienor's share as a tenant-in-common. There can be no doubt that so far at least as this Presidency is concerned that he has no such right, It has been ruled in a series of decisions that his only right is to obtain by a suit for partition, the share to which his alienor was entitled. He is allowed to stand in the shoes of the co-parcener whose rights he has acquired and thus the equities are worked out between the parties. The point is covered by recent decisions of this Court. In Maharaja of Bobbili v. Venkataramanujulu Naidu I.L.R. (1914) M. 265. s.c. 27 M.L.J. 409, it was ruled by Wallis, Chief Justice and Kumaraswami Sastri, J. that a purchaser of the undivided share of a member of a joint Hindu family does not thereby become a tenant-in-common with the other members. Sankaran Nair, J. and Bakewell, J. in Nanjaya Mudali v. Shanmuga I.L.R. (1914) M. 684. s.c. 26 M.L.J. 576, also laid down the law to the same effect after careful review of the Privy Council decisions bearing on the subject. The Judicial Committee's rulings in Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh I.L.R. (1879) C. 148 and Hardi Narain Sahu v. Ruder Perkash Misser I.L.R. (1883) c. 626, clearly bear out this view of the Hindu law. The learned vakil for the respondents has referred to some rulings of the Bombay High Court but it is not necessary to consider them here as there has been a uniform course of decisions in this Presidency laying down that an alienee from a Hindu co-parcener does not thereby acquire the rights of a tenant-in-common, such as, to possession and to mesne profits. Reliance was also placed on Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act but the rule enunciated there does not override the Hindu Law.

2. The result will be the decree of the District Judge will be set aside and there will be a decree declaring that the plaintiffs have a valid mortgage right to the extent of the share of the 3rd defendant and that they are entitled to enforce the same by a suit for partition. The respondents will pay the costs in this Court as well as in the District Court.


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