Skip to content


Annamalai Pathan and anr. Vs. Muthu Vijaya Raghunath Muthukumara Vanangamudi Veluvetti thevar and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in39Ind.Cas.427
AppellantAnnamalai Pathan and anr.
RespondentMuthu Vijaya Raghunath Muthukumara Vanangamudi Veluvetti thevar and ors.
Cases Referred and Sheikh Ibrahim Tharagan v. Rama Aiyar
Excerpt:
hindu law - joint family--suit on mortgage--mortgage interest common to family on death of mortgagee--manager, maintainability of suit by--civil procedure code (act v of 1908), order viii, rule 1. - - k 635. 2. but in this case the plaintiff produced some evidence that the property was part of the impartible zemindari and as the defendants failed to rebut this, the lower court found against them on the facts......was common to all the descendants of the original mortgagee, the plaintiff as the managing member of the family would be entitled to sue on behalf of all the members without joining them as plaintiffs. vide kishen parshad v. har narain singh 9 ind. cas. 739 and sheikh ibrahim tharagan v. rama aiyar 35 m.k 635.2. but in this case the plaintiff produced some evidence that the property was part of the impartible zemindari and as the defendants failed to rebut this, the lower court found against them on the facts. the second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Judgment:

1. The appellants, who belong to the family of the mortgagors, have taken the objection that the plaintiff, who is the present zemindar, ought to have joined his brothers as plaintiffs in suing on the mortgage executed in the late zemindar's favour. Even assuming that the property in question was common to all the descendants of the original mortgagee, the plaintiff as the managing member of the family would be entitled to sue on behalf of all the members without joining them as plaintiffs. Vide Kishen Parshad v. Har Narain Singh 9 Ind. Cas. 739 and Sheikh Ibrahim Tharagan v. Rama Aiyar 35 M.K 635.

2. But in this case the plaintiff produced some evidence that the property was part of the impartible zemindari and as the defendants failed to rebut this, the lower Court found against them on the facts. The second appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.


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