Skip to content


Narayanaswamy Naidu Minor by His Mother and Next Friend Sayamma Vs. Mathusri Rajai Ramakrishnamba Garu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in33Ind.Cas.83
AppellantNarayanaswamy Naidu Minor by His Mother and Next Friend Sayamma;g. Subbiah Chetty
RespondentMathusri Rajai Ramakrishnamba Garu and anr.;rajai Venkatamba Garu
Cases ReferredManika Vasaka Desikar v. Balagopalakrishna Chetty
Excerpt:
.....at the entry level. there cannot be a dispute about the proposition that an employer has the right to prescribe any qualifications for appointment to a post. if that be so, an employer has a concomitant right even to prescribe disqualifications when it comes appointment to a post. persons who were never involved in criminal cases, need not be treated as equals to or on par with persons who were involved in criminal cases merely because they are acquitted later, especially in the matter of selection to the police service of the state. the classification made between them, is not only reason able but also has a nexus with the object sought to be achieved. the employer does have the right to choose a person untainted with any allegations. the attempt made to assail the impugned rules..........personally and there is nothing in the decree to indicate that she was sued as representing the mahal estate for a debt alleged to be due by that estate. the decision in manika vasaka desikar v. balagopalakrishna chetty 16 m.l.j. 415 and other decisions cited by mr. c.s. venkatachariar are, therefore, not in point.2. that gangamamba's right in the mahal was not an absolute right, that it was not higher than a life-estate (if it amounted to even so much) and that the estate was not inherited by the 1st respondent as gangamamba's heir seem not to have been disputed in the lower court.3. the district judge was, therefore, right in refusing execution after gangamamba's death against lands belonging to the said estate and against moneys which evidently accrued due to that estate after.....
Judgment:

1. The decree sought to be executed was passed against Rajai Gangamamba personally and there is nothing in the decree to indicate that she was sued as representing the mahal estate for a debt alleged to be due by that estate. The decision in Manika Vasaka Desikar v. Balagopalakrishna Chetty 16 M.L.J. 415 and other decisions cited by Mr. C.S. Venkatachariar are, therefore, not in point.

2. That Gangamamba's right in the mahal was not an absolute right, that it was not higher than a life-estate (if it amounted to even so much) and that the estate was not inherited by the 1st respondent as Gangamamba's heir seem not to have been disputed in the lower Court.

3. The District Judge was, therefore, right in refusing execution after Gangamamba's death against lands belonging to the said estate and against moneys which evidently accrued due to that estate after Gangamamba's death.

4. We, therefore, dismiss this Appeal and the connected Appeal against Order No. 10 of 1915 with costs.


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