Skip to content


Vengidusawant Aiyar and ors. Vs. Narayanasawmy Aiyar and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in24Ind.Cas.880
AppellantVengidusawant Aiyar and ors.
RespondentNarayanasawmy Aiyar and anr.
Cases ReferredKuppusawmy v. Srinivasaiengar
Excerpt:
hindu law - widow's estate--widow in possession as trespasser--alienation by widow--suit by reversioner--burden of proof that widow had only limited interest. - .....held, though that is not now the law, that the two widows were entitled to succeed as heirs to the property of vaidyanatha, the last male owner. on the death of one of the widows the properties which fell to her share passed to the reversioners of vaidyanatha. on the death of the surviving widow, the claim of the reversioners is contested by the (laughter's sons of her husband by a previous wife : and the plaintiffs have sued as reversioners to establish their title. the subordinate judge has held correctly that the onus was on the plaintiffs to show that a widow who took possession in these circumstances acquired only a limited estate, following bapanayya v. peddichalamaiya 9 m.l.j. 33. see also kuppusawmy v. srinivasaiengar 10 ind. cas. 63 : 9 m.l.t. 445 : (1911) m.w.n. 314.. he has.....
Judgment:

1. According to the finding of the Subordinate Judge the property vested in Vaidyanatha Aiyar as the last surviving member of the joint family of himself and his two brothers. His brothers' widows and their mother-in-law enjoyed the property on his behalf for many years during his absence. In 1864, after the mother-in-law's death, one of the widows sued the other claiming the whole property as heir to Vaidyanatha who had not been hoard of for many years and (sic) oresumably dead. It was held, though that is not now the law, that the two widows were entitled to succeed as heirs to the property of Vaidyanatha, the last male owner. On the death of one of the widows the properties which fell to her share passed to the reversioners of Vaidyanatha. On the death of the surviving widow, the claim of the reversioners is contested by the (laughter's sons of her husband by a previous wife : and the plaintiffs have sued as reversioners to establish their title. The Subordinate Judge has held correctly that the onus was on the plaintiffs to show that a widow who took possession in these circumstances acquired only a limited estate, following Bapanayya v. Peddichalamaiya 9 M.L.J. 33. See also Kuppusawmy v. Srinivasaiengar 10 Ind. Cas. 63 : 9 M.L.T. 445 : (1911) M.W.N. 314.. He has also held for the reasons given by him that that onus has been satisfactorily discharged, and we are not prepared to interfere with his finding. The appeals are dismissed with costs.


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