Skip to content


Rama Kavunden and ors. Vs. Kuruthasawmy Naick and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1915Mad821(2); 25Ind.Cas.951
AppellantRama Kavunden and ors.
RespondentKuruthasawmy Naick and ors.
Cases ReferredRangappa Naik v. Kamti Naik
Excerpt:
hindu law - alienation by widow of whole or part of husband's estate--reversioner's consent, nature of--bona fide. - .....the entire property which the widow succeeded to after the death of her husband, the question of bona fides has no bearing upon the matter. no authority has been quoted for the proposition that where the widow alienates her entire property, the question that the consent of the reversioner to this alienation was obtained mala fide is not an element to be considered. we are unable to see on what principle a distinction between partial and total alienation can be sustained in this respect. we agree with the statement of the law contained in mayne's hindu law, paragraph 639, that the consent should have been given bona fide in either case. see also rangappa naik v. kamti naik 31 m. 366 : 3 m.l.t. 355 : 18 m.l.j. 309. this is the only point argued before us. the district judge is right in.....
Judgment:

1. In this case the consent of the next reversioner to the alienation has been found not to have been given in good faith. It is argued that as the alienation covered the entire property which the widow succeeded to after the death of her husband, the question of bona fides has no bearing upon the matter. No authority has been quoted for the proposition that where the widow alienates her entire property, the question that the consent of the reversioner to this alienation was obtained mala fide is not an element to be considered. We are unable to see on what principle a distinction between partial and total alienation can be sustained in this respect. We agree with the statement of the law contained in Mayne's Hindu Law, paragraph 639, that the consent should have been given bona fide in either case. See also Rangappa Naik v. Kamti Naik 31 M. 366 : 3 M.L.T. 355 : 18 M.L.J. 309. This is the only point argued before us. The District Judge is right in rejecting this contention. We dismiss the second appeal with costs.


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