Skip to content


Subbaraya Tawker Vs. Rajaram Tawker and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1902)ILR25Mad585
AppellantSubbaraya Tawker
RespondentRajaram Tawker and ors.
Excerpt:
hindu law - division of family property--agreement that share of one member in income of village should be paid him by managing member--subsequent claim for partition. - .....was agreed that the plaintiff was to receive one-fourth of the net income (on account of his one-fourth share of the village) from the oldest member of the family who was to manage the village.3. such an agreement cannot bar the plaintiff's right to sue for partition by metes and bounds of his one-fourth share of the village, as one of the four tenants in common.4. as regards the house, the plaintiff agreed to receive rs. 500 in lieu of his share in the event of his refusing to live in the house. he is not entitled to a partition of it if the co-sharers are willing to pay him the rs. 500.5. we therefore set aside the decree of the lower appellate court, and modify the decree of the district munsif by directing that the plaintiff do recover one-fourth share of the house unless the.....
Judgment:

1. We are unable to agree with the decision of the District Judge.

2. Under exhibit A the members of the family became completely divided in interest in respect of all their property, but so far as the village now in question is concerned it was agreed that the plaintiff was to receive one-fourth of the net income (on account of his one-fourth share of the village) from the oldest member of the family who was to manage the village.

3. Such an agreement cannot bar the plaintiff's right to sue for partition by metes and bounds of his one-fourth share of the village, as one of the four tenants in common.

4. As regards the house, the plaintiff agreed to receive Rs. 500 in lieu of his share in the event of his refusing to live in the house. He is not entitled to a partition of it if the co-sharers are willing to pay him the Rs. 500.

5. We therefore set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court, and modify the decree of the District Munsif by directing that the plaintiff do recover one-fourth share of the house unless the co-sharers or any of them deposit in Court for payment to the plaintiff Rs. 500 within three months from this date. In other respects we restore the decree of the District Munsif.

6. Plaintiff must have his costs in this and in the lower Appellate Court.


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