Skip to content


imbichi Kandan Vs. Kozhikot Kizhake Kovilagath Viyathen Sree Devi Alias Valia Thamburath Avergal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in4Ind.Cas.875a
Appellantimbichi Kandan
RespondentKozhikot Kizhake Kovilagath Viyathen Sree Devi Alias Valia Thamburath Avergal and ors.
Excerpt:
landlord and tenant - adimayavana tenure--denial of landlord's title by one of the tenants, whether works forfeiture in respect of other tenants--representative capacity--agency. - .....forfeited their right to hold the property. the judge has upheld this contention. the 1st defendant is not the managing member of a family of which the other defendants are members, and she does not represent, in any way, the others who hold portions of the property not included in her deed of sale. it is not alleged she is their agent. we are, therefore, of opinion that her alleged denial is not binding on the others, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover on the ground alleged by her, i.e., the tenure has been forfeited. 2. whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the property included in ex. (1) only is not a question raised in this suit, and does not arise on the pleadings.3. we, therefore, reverse the decree of the lower appellate court, and restore that of the munsif.....
Judgment:

1. The plaintiffs predecessors-in-title granted the lands on Adimayavana tenure to the family of defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The 1st defendant has now divided from defendants Nos. 2 and 3 and was in possession of a portion of the property so granted. On alienating that property in 1893 to the 10th defendant under Ex. (1)) she is alleged to have stated that it is her jenm. The plaintiff's contention is that this is a denial of her jenm, and all the defendants, therefore, have forfeited their right to hold the property. The Judge has upheld this contention. The 1st defendant is not the managing member of a family of which the other defendants are members, and she does not represent, in any way, the others who hold portions of the property not included in her deed of sale. It is not alleged she is their agent. We are, therefore, of opinion that her alleged denial is not binding on the others, and the plaintiff is not entitled to recover on the ground alleged by her, i.e., the tenure has been forfeited.

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to recover the property included in Ex. (1) only is not a question raised in this suit, and does not arise on the pleadings.

3. We, therefore, reverse the decree of the lower appellate Court, 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 //