Skip to content


(Yanne) Bavajee and anr. Vs. (Pisipati) Annapurnamma and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
Subject Family
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1929Mad403a
Appellant(Yanne) Bavajee and anr.
Respondent(Pisipati) Annapurnamma and anr.
Excerpt:
- - as the application was made late, i direct the defendants to pay the costs here as well as in the lower court......shastri was. one of the issues framed in the suit reads thus :.who was the last male holder of the suit properties?2. in these circumstances, the defendants in the three suits in question applied that nagabhushanam might be made a party defendant. there was some delay in making the application and the district munsif naturally felt disinclined to comply with the request. i should not ordinarily interfere with an order of this kind; but it is very necessary to do that if possible conflicting findings should be avoided. a finding may be arrived at in favour of the plaintiffs in the present suits. what prevents a different finding being reached in a suit naghabhushanam may choose to file? i would therefore set aside the order of the district munsif and direct nagabhushanam to be made.....
Judgment:

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the daughters of Pullamma who died on 5th December 1925. They claim that, on their mother's death, they became entitled to the properties of their father Narayanappa and in this suit they seek to get certain alienations set aside. The suit was filed in December 1926 and on 10th March 1927 one Nagabhushanam sent a notice to defendants, claiming the properties to which the suit relates, on the ground that he is the reversionary heir of Shastri, the son of Narayanappa. The question really resolves itself into this. Who died later the son or the father? In other words, who is the last male holder. The plaintiffs' case is that Narayanappa was, whereas Nagabhushanam's case is that Shastri was. One of the issues framed in the suit reads thus :.

Who was the last male holder of the suit properties?

2. In these circumstances, the defendants in the three suits in question applied that Nagabhushanam might be made a party defendant. There was some delay in making the application and the District Munsif naturally felt disinclined to comply with the request. I should not ordinarily interfere with an order of this kind; but it is very necessary to do that if possible conflicting findings should be avoided. A finding may be arrived at in favour of the plaintiffs in the present suits. What prevents a different finding being reached in a suit Naghabhushanam may choose to file? I would therefore set aside the order of the District Munsif and direct Nagabhushanam to be made defendant in each of the three suits. As the application was made late, I direct the defendants to pay the costs here as well as in the lower Court. I fix the costs of the revision petitions at Rs. 50 and the costs below at Rs. 50 (total Sections 100), in all the three suits, to be paid in three equal shares by the three sets of defendants.


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