Skip to content


Mahomed Ibrahim Sahib Vs. Syed Meera Oommal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in7Ind.Cas.558a
AppellantMahomed Ibrahim Sahib
RespondentSyed Meera Oommal and ors.
Cases ReferredYelumalai Chetti v. Srinivsaa Chetti
Excerpt:
civil procedure code (act xiv of 1882), section 244 - suit for partition by purchaser of co-parcener's right. - 1. we think there should be an issue as to whether the suit is barred by section 244, civil procedure code. we, therefore, direct the district judge to return a finding on the issue after taking such fresh evidence as the parties may adduce on the issue.2. the findings should be submitted in six weeks, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.[in compliance with the above judgment, the district judge of madura submitted the followingfinding.3. the high court in this case has called for a finding on the following additional issue:is the suit barred by section 244, civil procedure code? 4. plaintiff's cause of action is that she purchased at a court sale-auction one-third undivided share in certain property, that she obtained joint possession of the property so purchased through.....
Judgment:

1. We think there should be an issue as to whether the suit is barred by Section 244, Civil Procedure Code. We, therefore, direct the District Judge to return a finding on the issue after taking such fresh evidence as the parties may adduce on the issue.

2. The findings should be submitted in six weeks, and seven days will be allowed for filing objections.

[In compliance with the above judgment, the District Judge of Madura submitted the following

FINDING.

3. The High Court in this case has called for a finding on the following additional issue:

Is the suit barred by Section 244, Civil Procedure Code?

4. Plaintiff's cause of action is that she purchased at a Court sale-auction one-third undivided share in certain property, that she obtained joint possession of the property so purchased through the Court and was in joint enjoyment until the defendants interfered with her enjoyment. She, therefore, sues for partition and separate possession of her one-third share. This being the cause of action as clearly disclosed by the plaint, the issue on which I am asked to record a finding resolves itself into a point of law, which has already been decided by the ruling in the case of Yelumalai Chetti v. Srinivsaa Chetti 29 M. 294. I follow that ruling and find that Section 244, Civil Procedure Code, is not a bar to this suit.]

5. This second appeal coming on for final hearing after the return of the finding of the lower appellate Court, the Court delivered the following

6. Accepting the finding, we dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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