Skip to content


Krishnaswami thevan and ors. Vs. Pulukaruppa thevan Minor by His Mother and Gaurdian Krishnammal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtChennai
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Mad717; 88Ind.Cas.424
AppellantKrishnaswami thevan and ors.
RespondentPulukaruppa thevan Minor by His Mother and Gaurdian Krishnammal and ors.
Excerpt:
hindu law - joint family--partition minor, suit by birth of son after institution of suit, effect of--profits, whether can be claimed. - .....the plaintiff, 1st respondent, has no objection to the items which have been alienated in favour of these appellants being apportioned to the share of the 1st defendant at the find partition if this can be done without detriment to the plaintiff's interest. there will be a direction to that effect added to the preliminary decree of the lower court.2. as regards costs the lower court directed that the costs of the suit in that court should be recovered from the defendants nos. 1 and 7 as the 7th defendant wholly failed and as the 1st defendant had been enjoying the income of the lands. it will be equitable that the 7th defendant should bear the costs of the suit in the lower court in proportion to the value of the item in which he is interested, and the vakil's fee should be.....
Judgment:

Spencer, J.

1. This is a suit brought by a minor represented by his mother as next friend for partition of family property. He impugned several alienations made by his father, the 1st defendant, as not binding on his interest and the Subordinate Judge passed a preliminary decree for partition. The 7th defendant and the defendants Nos. 4, 5, and 6 who are the legal representatives of the 3rd defendant appeal. The 7th defendant is an alienee of the first item and the others are alienees of items Nos. 4, 7 and 28. Their Vakil, without directly attacking the findings of the Subordinate Judge that the alienations of these items are not supported by consideration and are not binding on the plaintiff, has argued that as the 1st defendant admitted having received consideration, these alienations are binding at least on his share, and that they may, in the course of partition, be allotted to his share, and that if this is done the possession of these appellants will not be disturbed. The items in dispute measure altogether 7 acres and 40 cents and the items found to belong to the family as per A Schedule measure 27 acres 83 cents. The plaintiff, 1st respondent, has no objection to the items which have been alienated in favour of these appellants being apportioned to the share of the 1st defendant at the find partition if this can be done without detriment to the plaintiff's interest. There will be a direction to that effect added to the preliminary decree of the lower Court.

2. As regards costs the lower Court directed that the costs of the suit in that Court should be recovered from the defendants Nos. 1 and 7 as the 7th defendant wholly failed and as the 1st defendant had been enjoying the income of the lands. It will be equitable that the 7th defendant should bear the costs of the suit in the lower Court in proportion to the value of the item in which he is interested, and the Vakil's fee should be calculated accordingly. The balance will be recoverable from the 1st defendant. With these modifications the appeal is dismissed with costs.


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