Skip to content


Lakshmakka Vs. Boggaramanna - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR19Mad501
AppellantLakshmakka
RespondentBoggaramanna
Excerpt:
hindu law - deed containing restrictions on inheritance invalid. - - on failure of such issue he agrees to hand it over to boggaramanna under whom the plaintiff claims. the document is somewhat obscure, but the meaning appears to be that boggaramanna should take on failure of male issue at any time, however remote. the plaintiff must, therefore, fail.1. the plaintiff can only recover on the strength of his title-deed (exhibit b). by that instrument subbarayadu, the then owner, agrees to hold the property only so long as there is male issue in his family. on failure of such issue he agrees to hand it over to boggaramanna under whom the plaintiff claims. the document is somewhat obscure, but the meaning appears to be that boggaramanna should take on failure of male issue at any time, however remote. it is in fact an attempt to create a new line of inheritance by excluding all heirs other than direct male heirs. this being so, the instrument is invalid. the plaintiff must, therefore, fail. we must reverse the decree of the district judge and restore that of the district munsif. respondent must pay appellant's costs in this court only.
Judgment:

1. The plaintiff can only recover on the strength of his title-deed (Exhibit B). By that instrument Subbarayadu, the then owner, agrees to hold the property only so long as there is male issue in his family. On failure of such issue he agrees to hand it over to Boggaramanna under whom the plaintiff claims. The document is somewhat obscure, but the meaning appears to be that Boggaramanna should take on failure of male issue at any time, however remote. It is in fact an attempt to create a new line of inheritance by excluding all heirs other than direct male heirs. This being so, the instrument is invalid. The plaintiff must, therefore, fail. We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and restore that of the District Munsif. Respondent must pay appellant's costs in this Court only.


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