Keshavan and anr. Vs. Vasudevan and anr.

Keshavan and anr. vs Vasudevan and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Jan 30, 1884

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/773881

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/773881
Court: Chennai
Judge: Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Kindersley, J.
Decided On: Jan 30, 1884
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Malabar Law - Nambudri Brahmans--Introduction of stranger to perpetuate existence of illam--Evidence--Pymaish accounts. - - and it is denied that the Tamarasheri illam enjoyed the uraima right now claimed, but there was also oral evidence, and in the Munsif's Court the dispute was not that an illam bearing that na...

Key legal issue: Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Keshavan and anr.

Respondent

Vasudevan and anr.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Tottacara Muttoor Manakel Naraina Nambudripad v. Puvally Manakel Tirvikrama Nambudripad
Reported In: (1883)ILR7Mad297

Excerpt

malabar law - nambudri brahmans--introduction of stranger to perpetuate existence of illam--evidence--pymaish accounts. - - and it is denied that the tamarasheri illam enjoyed the uraima right now claimed, but there was also oral evidence, and in the munsif's court the dispute was not that an illam bearing that name had no uraima right, but that the illam which the first respondent claims to represent was not the tamarasheri illam which enjoyed the right. and if this be so, such person would prima facie be entitled to hold the property held by the illam as trustee as well as to enjoy the property held by the illam as its own.charles a. turner, kt., c.j.1. the pymaish [survey measurement-wilson] alone is not sufficient evidence to establish a right which is denied; and it is denied that the tamarasheri illam enjoyed the uraima right now claimed, but there was also oral evidence, and in the munsif's court the dispute was not that an illam bearing that name had no uraima right, but that the illam which the first respondent claims to represent was not the tamarasheri illam which enjoyed the right.2. the decision of the sadr court in tottacara muttoor manakel naraina nambudripad v. puvally manakel tirvikrama nambudripad 1855 m.s.d. 125 is an authority for holding that a person may be introduced into an illam to perpetuate its existence and that he thereby becomes a member of the illam; and if this be so, such person would prima facie be entitled to hold the property held by the illam as trustee as well as to enjoy the property held by the illam as its own.3. the subordinate judge finds that the first respondent had been introduced into, and appointed, a member of the illam in accordance with a prevailing custom, and we are not prepared to hold that he was not entitled to come to that conclusion.4. the appellants do not show that a person so appointed and introduced would not be entitled to exercise a uraima right. as to the fourth ground of appeal, the property has been recovered for the devasam and the rights of the uralars who contested the first respondent's claim are not prejudiced by the decree. the appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J.

1. The pymaish [Survey measurement-Wilson] alone is not sufficient evidence to establish a right which is denied; and it is denied that the Tamarasheri illam enjoyed the uraima right now claimed, but there was also oral evidence, and in the Munsif's Court the dispute was not that an illam bearing that name had no uraima right, but that the illam which the first respondent claims to represent was not the Tamarasheri illam which enjoyed the right.

2. The decision of the Sadr Court in Tottacara Muttoor Manakel Naraina Nambudripad v. Puvally Manakel Tirvikrama Nambudripad 1855 M.S.D. 125 is an authority for holding that a person may be introduced into an illam to perpetuate its existence and that he thereby becomes a member of the illam; and if this be so, such person would prima facie be entitled to hold the property held by the illam as trustee as well as to enjoy the property held by the illam as its own.

3. The Subordinate Judge finds that the first respondent had been introduced into, and appointed, a member of the illam in accordance with a prevailing custom, and we are not prepared to hold that he was not entitled to come to that conclusion.

4. The appellants do not show that a person so appointed and introduced would not be entitled to exercise a uraima right. As to the fourth ground of appeal, the property has been recovered for the devasam and the rights of the uralars who contested the first respondent's claim are not prejudiced by the decree. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Keshavan and anr. vs Vasudevan and anr. Same Subject Civil Same Judge Charles A. Turner, Kt., C.J. and ;Kindersley, J.

Civil