Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: rationale Court: chennai Year: 1910 Page 1 of about 2 results (0.037 seconds)

Sep 21 1910 (PC)

Devulapalli Kameswara Sastri and ors. Vs. Polavarapu Veeracharlu

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-21-1910

Reported in : (1911)ILR34Mad422

abdur rahim, j.1. i entirely agree is the conclusion reached by my brother krishnaswami aiyar in the learned and instructive judgment which he is about to read. i have nothing to add. the decree of the subordinate judge will be set aside as regards the third defendant, and that of the district munsif will be restored. there will be no coats.krishnaswami ayyar, j.2. this second appeal has been preferred against the decree of the subordinate judge disallowing the plaintiff's claim against the third defendant's share in the mortgaged property. the mortgage was executed by the first defendant, the father, and the second defendant, the adult son, while the third defendant a minor was represented by the father, who also signed the document as his guardian. the money was borrowed for the marriage expenses of the second defendant. the defendants have been dealt with as sudras in this case, and no question has been raised as regards the correctness of that view. it is contended that the subordinate judge is wrong in holding that the marriage expenses of the second defendant are not under the hindu law a justifiable necessity for the borrowing of money and the execution of the mortgage. the powers of a hindu manager of family property have been expounded in the judgment of lord justice knight bruce in hunoomanpersaud panday v. mussumat babooee munraj koonweree (1856) 6 m.i.a. 393, his lordship says 'the power of the manager for an infant heir to charge an estate not his own, is, under .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 21 1910 (PC)

Devulapalli Kameswara Sastry and ors. Vs. Polavarapu Veeracharlu, Mino ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Sep-21-1910

Reported in : (1910)20MLJ855

abdur rahim, j.1. i entirely agree in the conclusion reached by my brother krishnaswami aiyar in the learned and instructive judgment which he is about to read. i have nothing to add. the decree of the subordinate judge will be set aside as regards the 3rd defendant and that of the district munsif will be restored. there will be no costs.krishnaswami aiyar, j.2. this second appeal has been preferred against the decree of the subordinate judge disallowing the plaintiffs' claim against the 3rd defendant's share in the mortgaged property. the mortgage was executed by the 1st defendant, the father, and the 2nd defendant, the adult son, while the 3rd defendant, a minor, was represented by the father, who also signed the document as his guardian. the money was borrowed for the marriage expenses of the ind defendant. the defendants have been dealt with as sudras in this case, and no question has been raised as regards the correctness of that view. it is contended that the subordinate judge is wrong in holding that the marriage expenses of the 2nd defendant are not under the hindu law a justifiable necessity for the borrowing of money and the execution of the mortgage. the powers of a hindu manager of family property have been expounded in the judgment of lord justice knight bruce in hunoomanpersaud pan day v. mussumat babooee munraj koonweree (1856) 6 m.i.a. p. 393., his lordship says: ' the power of the manager for an infant heir to charge an estate not his own, is, under the hindu .....

Tag this Judgment!


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