Skip to content


Venkatarayadu and ors. Vs. Venkataramayya and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1892)ILR15Mad284
AppellantVenkatarayadu and ors.
RespondentVenkataramayya and anr.
Cases ReferredVenkata v. Rama I.L.R.
Excerpt:
hindu law--karnam, hereditary office of--enfranchisement of endowment--devolution of land enfranchised. - .....i.l.r. 8 mad. 249. the land which formed the emolument of the office of karnam did not become the family property of the person appointed to the office, although he may have had an hereditary claim to the office. the land was designed to be the emolument of the person into whose hand the office of the karnam might pass and was inalienable by him. the effect of enfranchisement was to free the lands from their inalienable character and to empower the government to deal with them as they pleased. the grant of them to venkata narasiah was not a grant to the undivided family, of which he formed a unit, but to him personally, and the future succession and transmission of the land was placed in the same position as any other private property. the plaintiffs were neither holders of the office.....
Judgment:

1. We think that the decision of the Subordinate Judge is opposed to the principles laid down in the Full Bench decision in Venkata v. Rama I.L.R. 8 Mad. 249. The land which formed the emolument of the office of karnam did not become the family property of the person appointed to the office, although he may have had an hereditary claim to the office. The land was designed to be the emolument of the person into whose hand the office of the karnam might pass and was inalienable by him. The effect of enfranchisement was to free the lands from their inalienable character and to empower the Government to deal with them as they pleased. The grant of them to Venkata Narasiah was not a grant to the undivided family, of which he formed a unit, but to him personally, and the future succession and transmission of the land was placed in the same position as any other private property. The plaintiffs were neither holders of the office at the time of enfranchisement, nor in possession of the lands, and their suit, therefore, was, as the Munsif held, not sustainable. We reverse the decree of the Subordinate Judge and restore that of the Munsif with costs in this and the lower Appellate Court.


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