Skip to content


Devaguptapu Narasimham and ors. Vs. Devaguptapu Chendramma and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported in92Ind.Cas.321; (1925)49MLJ547
AppellantDevaguptapu Narasimham and ors.
RespondentDevaguptapu Chendramma and ors.
Excerpt:
inam grant - grant 'to representatives and assigns'--death of grantee before date of grant--grant, whether enures to heirs of grantee--board's standing order 52(2). - securitisation & reconstruction of financial assets & enforcement of security interest act, 2002 [c.a. no. 54/2002]section 17; power of tribunal to impose condition relating to deposit for grant of stay of auction held, there is no specific provision made under section 17 of securitisation act or under any other provisions of the said act empowering the tribunal to pass any interim order. but under sub-section (12) of section 19 of the recovery of debts due to banks and financial institutions act, 1993, the tribunal has been empowered to pass various interim orders. if sub-section (7) of section 17 of securitisation act is..........and, therefore, the plaintiffs as his heirs have got no right.2. the title-deed runs as follows: 'titledeed granted to (1) devaguptapu subbara-yudu, (2) devaguptapu chendramma, (3) devaguptapu venkatajaru and four others as per register;' and it recites,the inam is now confirmed to you, your representatives and assigns, to hold or dispose of as you or they think proper.3. the question at issue is whether this is a grant to venkataraju and his representatives and assigns, or whether these words are words of mere limitation as contended for by the respondent. the treatment of such words as being words of limitation is a legal technicality and the question is, whether the government in issuing this deed intended to adopt this technicality or whether they intended to use the words in their.....
Judgment:

Phillips, J.

1. The plaintiffs are the nearest heirs of one Venkataraju in whose favour (with others) three inam title-deeds were issued in 1906 and 1907. Both the lower Courts have found that as Venkataraju was dead on the day on which these title-deeds were issued, he obtained no right to the suit property, and, therefore, the plaintiffs as his heirs have got no right.

2. The title-deed runs as follows: 'Titledeed granted to (1) Devaguptapu Subbara-yudu, (2) Devaguptapu Chendramma, (3) Devaguptapu Venkatajaru and four others as per register;' and it recites,

The inam is now confirmed to you, your representatives and assigns, to hold or dispose of as you or they think proper.

3. The question at issue is whether this is a grant to Venkataraju and his representatives and assigns, or whether these words are words of mere limitation as contended for by the respondent. The treatment of such words as being words of limitation is a legal technicality and the question is, whether the Government in issuing this deed intended to adopt this technicality or whether they intended to use the words in their ordinary meaning. The words are, no doubt, ambiguous; therefore, I think, it is relevant to refer to the Board's Standing Order 52(2) which deals with this question. There it is laid down.

4. 'In case of the death of the holder of an enfranchised inam before the actual delivery to him of the title-deed, the deed should, in the first place, be entrusted to the Revenue Authorities for safe custody. The Collector should make inquiry as to who is the party entitled, as heir of the deceased, to. Receive the deed, and is enjoined to hand it over, exactly as received, to the heir of the deceased.' If these words were words of mere limitation, the grant to the deceased would fail, and if it was intended to give a fresh grant to the heirs, it would be necessary to issue a grant afresh in their name. Inasmuch as the Government have declared that that is not the procedure to be adopted, I think it is clear that these words are not mere words of limitation but are effective to secure the grant to the heirs of the deceased grantee, which is the intention of Government as expressed in the above Board's Standing Order. That being so, the plaintiffs are entitled to the properties covered by the grant.

5. A question is raised by the respondent as to the non-joinder of parties, but under Order I, Rule 13, C.P.C., this should have been raised in the Trial Court and must now be deemed to have been Avaived.

6. As the lower Appellate Court has not recorded any finding on the other issues in this suit, this decree must be set aside and the appeal remanded for disposal on the other issues. Costs will abide the result.

7. Stamp fee on the appeal memo will be refunded to the appellant.


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