Skip to content


P. Sambasiva Sastrial Vs. Ramaswami Sastrial and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1925Mad803; (1925)48MLJ353
AppellantP. Sambasiva Sastrial
RespondentRamaswami Sastrial and ors.
Cases Referred and Fateh Singh v. Thakur Rukmini Ramanji Maharaj
Excerpt:
- - xviii is perfectly valid as a surrender. , the self-effacement of the widow and the absence of a device by the widow to divide the estate with the reversioners are satisfied [see sureshwar misser v. 4. the document is also therefore good as a family arrangement--such arrangement being arrived at by means of a surrender [see my judgment in appeal no......is not clear that he left a son or other reversioner who could! claim the property. it is true he left a widow but her inaction in not claiming the property is not inexplicable. the subordinate judge is right in presuming the authority for an adoption which took place in 1867 and which was not questioned.2. it is next argued that bhagirathi and her daughters prescribed only for a mother's and daughter's estates respectively and ex. xviii is relied on for this purpose. ex. xviii throws no light on the estate prescribed by bhagirathi or valambal. even as to abhirami ammal, it is not clear that she claimed a daughter's estate. the utmost that can be said for the appellant is that the document is dubious.3. ex. xviii is perfectly valid as a surrender. the conditions of a valid surrender, i......
Judgment:

Ramesam, J.

1. The finding about the adoption must be accepted. It was acted upon from 1867 to 1873 when the adopted boy died without being questioned by any relation. The reversioner, Ramachandra Sastri, lived only for three months after the death of Bhagirathi and it is not clear that he left a son or other reversioner who could! claim the property. It is true he left a widow but her inaction in not claiming the property is not inexplicable. The Subordinate Judge is right in presuming the authority for an adoption which took place in 1867 and which was not questioned.

2. It is next argued that Bhagirathi and her daughters prescribed only for a mother's and daughter's estates respectively and Ex. XVIII is relied on for this purpose. Ex. XVIII throws no light on the estate prescribed by Bhagirathi or Valambal. Even as to Abhirami Ammal, it is not clear that she claimed a daughter's estate. The utmost that can be said for the appellant is that the document is dubious.

3. Ex. XVIII is perfectly valid as a surrender. The conditions of a valid surrender, i. e., the self-effacement of the widow and the absence of a device by the widow to divide the estate with the reversioners are satisfied [see Sureshwar Misser v. Maheshrani Misrain ILR (1920) C 100 : 1920 39 MLJ 161 ]. The stipulation that the reversioners are to divide the property in shares different from what they would get as reversioners (3/5 and 2/5) does not make the surrender invalid.

4. The document is also therefore good as a family arrangement--such arrangement being arrived at by means of a surrender [see my judgment in Appeal No. 368 of 1921]. The plaintiff being a party to Ex. XVIII is also estopped from putting forward the present claim. [Kanhai Lal v. Brij Lal ILR (1918) A 487 : 1918 35 MLJ 459 and Fateh Singh v. Thakur Rukmini Ramanji Maharaj ILR (1923) A 339].

5. The Second Appeal fails and is dismissed with costs one set. The pleader's fee is to be 'divided between the 1st respondent and respondents 5, 9 to 11 and 20. The first respondent will be entitled to the whole of the printing charges.


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