Skip to content


Bogisetti Akka Nagamma Vs. Panganama Krishna Rao and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in52Ind.Cas.746
AppellantBogisetti Akka Nagamma
RespondentPanganama Krishna Rao and anr.
Cases ReferredChinnu Pillai v. Kalimuthu Chetti
Excerpt:
hindu law - mitakshara law prevailing in madras presidency--joint family--mortgage by co-parcener of his share, validity of. - .....from the law in allahabad and calcutta was recognised by the privy council so long ago as lakskman dada naik v. ramchandra dada naik 4 sar. p.c.j. 173 : 3 suth. p.g.j. 778 : 3 shome. l.r. 217 : 4 ind. jur. 472 : 7 c.l.r. 320 : 3 ind. dec. (n.s.) 34 and suraj bunsi koer v. sheo persad singh 5 c.p 148 : 6 i.a. 88 : 4. sar. p.c.j. 1 : 3 suth. p.c.j. 589 : 4 r.p 226 : 2 shome l.r. 242 : 2 ind. dec. (n.s.) 705 this being so we are not prepared to apply lachhman prasad v. sarpam singh 40 ind. cas. 281 : 21 c.w.n. 990 : 33 m.l.t. 39 : 19 bom. l.r. 646 : 26 c.l.j. 97 : (1917) m.w.n. 516 : 6 l.w. 334 : 44 i.a. 163. as it is opposed to the ruling of the fall bench of this court in chinnu pillai v. kalimuthu chetti 9 ind. cas 596 : (1911) i.m.w.n. 238 : 9 m.l.t. 389 : 21 m.l.j. 246 which confirms.....
Judgment:

1. The second of the oases relied on by the District Judge, Luchhman Prasad v. Sarnam, Singh 40 Ind. Cas. 281 : 19 Bom. L.R. 646 : 26 C.L.J. 97 : (1917) M.W.N. 516 : 6 L.W. 334 : 44 I.A. 163 was decided with reference to the law in Allahabad, and in Anant Ram v. Collector of Etah 44 Ind. Cas. 290 : 34 M.L.J. 291 : 7 L.W. 323 : 4 P.L.W. 226 : 16 A.L.J 245 : 23 M.L.T. 228 : 22 C.W.N. 484 : 27 C.L.J. 363 : 20 Bom. L.R. 621: (1918) M.W.N. 446 the 'Judicial Committee in referring to the same case quote it as being authority for that province.

2. The fact that the law on this point is different in Madras and Bombay from the law in Allahabad and Calcutta was recognised by the Privy Council so long ago as Lakskman Dada Naik v. Ramchandra Dada Naik 4 Sar. P.C.J. 173 : 3 Suth. P.G.J. 778 : 3 Shome. L.R. 217 : 4 Ind. Jur. 472 : 7 C.L.R. 320 : 3 Ind. Dec. (n.s.) 34 and Suraj Bunsi Koer v. Sheo Persad Singh 5 C.P 148 : 6 I.A. 88 : 4. Sar. P.C.J. 1 : 3 Suth. P.C.J. 589 : 4 R.P 226 : 2 Shome L.R. 242 : 2 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 705 This being so we are not prepared to apply Lachhman Prasad v. Sarpam Singh 40 Ind. Cas. 281 : 21 C.W.N. 990 : 33 M.L.T. 39 : 19 Bom. L.R. 646 : 26 C.L.J. 97 : (1917) M.W.N. 516 : 6 L.W. 334 : 44 I.A. 163. as it is opposed to the ruling of the Fall Bench of this Court in Chinnu Pillai v. Kalimuthu Chetti 9 Ind. Cas 596 : (1911) I.M.W.N. 238 : 9 M.L.T. 389 : 21 M.L.J. 246 which confirms the current of previous decisions in this Presidenay. Under this ruling, plaintiff is entitled to a dearce against his mortgagor's 1/3 rd share of the property mortgaged and there will be a decree accordingly. Parties will pay and restive proportionate costs through-out, 1/3rd and 2/3rds.

3. Time for payment extended to three month from this date.


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