Skip to content


Subba Naidu Vs. Nagayya and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad424; (1902)12MLJ89
AppellantSubba Naidu
RespondentNagayya and ors.
Cases ReferredDharanipragada Durgamma v. Kadambari Virrazu I.L.R.
Excerpt:
hindu law - enfranchisement of land in favour of widow as personal inam land-- lease by widow--sale of the land by her reversioners--validity of lease--title of purchaser. - .....we do not think, however, that the cases are parallel. when a service inam is enfranchised the reversionary interest of government is given up, but when a personal inam is enfranchised the reversionary right of government is expressly reserved under the rules of the inam settlement. the plaintiff does not produce the inam title-deed or show that the grant in this case was made on terms other than those sanctioned by the general rules, the reason no doubt being that there is no variation. the plaintiff in fact comes into court without any title, his vendor the reversioner, having none.2. the second appeal therefore fails and it is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff sues to recover land in the possession of the defendants on the strength of his purchase from the reversioners of a Hindu widow in whose favour the land was enfranchised as a personal inam. The District Judge dismissed the suit on the authority of Dharanipragada Durgamma v. Kadambari Virrazu I.L.R. 21 Mad. 47 considering that the same principle would apply to a personal inam as to a service inam. We do not think, however, that the cases are parallel. When a service inam is enfranchised the reversionary interest of Government is given up, but when a personal inam is enfranchised the reversionary right of Government is expressly reserved under the rules of the Inam Settlement. The plaintiff does not produce the inam title-deed or show that the grant in this case was made on terms other than those sanctioned by the general rules, the reason no doubt being that there is no variation. The plaintiff in fact comes into Court without any title, his vendor the reversioner, having none.

2. The second appeal therefore fails and it is dismissed with costs.


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