Skip to content


Narayanaswami Mudaliar and ors. Vs. Ratnasabapatby Mudali and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1938Mad136; (1937)2MLJ906
AppellantNarayanaswami Mudaliar and ors.
RespondentRatnasabapatby Mudali and anr.
Cases ReferredSee Brown v. Brown
Excerpt:
- - as subbaraya's will comprises joint family properties as well as properties which we have held to be self-acquired and as the plaintiffs have under that will been given certain benefits which they may not be entitled to retain if they prefer to repudiate the will, they must elect either to stand by the will or to repudiate it. but their learned counsel represents that as the next friend is a woman, it will be better if following the english practice the court itself holds an enquiry as to what is most beneficial to the minors in the circumstances and decides accordingly......properties left by the deceased subbaraya is not maintainable. as subbaraya's will comprises joint family properties as well as properties which we have held to be self-acquired and as the plaintiffs have under that will been given certain benefits which they may not be entitled to retain if they prefer to repudiate the will, they must elect either to stand by the will or to repudiate it. we allowed the matter to stand over for sometime to see if the plaintiffs' next friend is able to do anything in the matter. but their learned counsel represents that as the next friend is a woman, it will be better if following the english practice the court itself holds an enquiry as to what is most beneficial to the minors in the circumstances and decides accordingly. see brown v. brown (1866) l.r......
Judgment:
ORDER

14. The result is that the decree of the lower Court cannot be sustained in the form in which it has been passed. Likewise, the claim for partition of all the properties left by the deceased Subbaraya is not maintainable. As Subbaraya's will comprises joint family properties as well as properties which we have held to be self-acquired and as the plaintiffs have under that will been given certain benefits which they may not be entitled to retain if they prefer to repudiate the will, they must elect either to stand by the will or to repudiate it. We allowed the matter to stand over for sometime to see if the plaintiffs' next friend is able to do anything in the matter. But their learned Counsel represents that as the next friend is a woman, it will be better if following the English practice the Court itself holds an enquiry as to what is most beneficial to the minors in the circumstances and decides accordingly. See Brown v. Brown (1866) L.R. 2Eq. 481 and also the passage in Mullah's Transfer of Property Act, page 157. We must accordingly call upon the lower Court to make an enquiry after giving notice to both parties and ascertain whether it will be more advantageous for the plaintiffs to confirm the will and take the benefits conferred upon them by the will or to repudiate the will and limit their claim to a partition of such of the properties as according to the directions above contained must be held to be joint family properties. The report will be submitted before the 10th January 1937. Ten days for objections.

15. Order a report will be rests given to avoid property family lower the interests by the has allotted under declaring propertie

16. Ther report present Rs. 20 friend Counsel us have being consid made a direct first their

17. [On receipt of the Findings]

18. The Court made the following


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