Skip to content


Gadidass Suryanarayana Row Vs. Gadidass Rajya Lakshmamma Alias Rajyam and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.800
AppellantGadidass Suryanarayana Row
RespondentGadidass Rajya Lakshmamma Alias Rajyam and ors.
Excerpt:
plaint confusedly drawn - issues. - .....no alienations. the plaint is very clumsily drawn. it is not clear that alienations purporting to be beyond the life-time of the widow were set up. but taking the plaint with issues nos. 4 and 5, we may assume that it is the plaintiff's case that there were such alienations. we cannot agree with the judge that there was no evidence of such alienations. ex. p. and the deposition of p.w. no. 7 are evidence of some of the alienations we must reverse the decree of the district judge and remand the case for disposal according to law. we must point out that the suit is only brought upon the footing of reversionary right to the property of a hindu widow. though the plaintiff speaks of himself as a member of an undivided family with the deceased husband of the 1st defendant, the suit is not.....
Judgment:

1. The District, Judge is wrong in holding that there were no alienations. The plaint is very clumsily drawn. It is not clear that alienations purporting to be beyond the life-time of the widow were set up. But taking the plaint with issues Nos. 4 and 5, we may assume that it is the plaintiff's case that there were such alienations. We cannot agree with the Judge that there was no evidence of such alienations. Ex. P. and the deposition of P.W. No. 7 are evidence of some of the alienations We must reverse the decree of the District Judge and remand the case for disposal according to law. We must point out that the suit is only brought upon the footing of reversionary right to the property of a Hindu widow. Though the plaintiff speaks of himself as a member of an undivided family with the deceased husband of the 1st defendant, the suit is not for recovery of property on that basis. It is admitted for the appellant that the plaintiff claims only as reversioner. No question of limitation, therefore, arises. We must, however, direct the appellant to pay the costs of the respondent in this Court as much of the difficulty arose from the confusion in the plaint.


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