Anantan Vs. Sankaran and ors.

Anantan vs Sankaran and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 23, 1890

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/778090

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/778090
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Best, J.
Decided On: Sep 23, 1890
Subject: Property;Civil

Case Summary

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

Malabar law - Suit by junior members of a tarwad--Suit for declaration of invalidity of kanom--Limitation. - - The karnavan is included as a defendant in the suit, and, as he has failed to sue till the period of twelve years has almost expired, we are of opinion that the suit by the junior members cannot be validl...

Key legal issue: Property;Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Anantan

Respondent

Sankaran and ors.

Legal References

Cases Referred: Pachamuthu v. Chinnappan I.L.R.
Reported In: (1891)ILR14Mad101

Excerpt

malabar law - suit by junior members of a tarwad--suit for declaration of invalidity of kanom--limitation. - - the karnavan is included as a defendant in the suit, and, as he has failed to sue till the period of twelve years has almost expired, we are of opinion that the suit by the junior members cannot be validly objected to.1. it is contended, in the first instance, that the suit brought by the junior members of a tarwad is not maintainable. the karnavan is included as a defendant in the suit, and, as he has failed to sue till the period of twelve years has almost expired, we are of opinion that the suit by the junior members cannot be validly objected to.2. the other question is whether the suit is time-barred3. applying the principle of the decision of this court in pachamuthu v. chinnappan i.l.r. 10 mad. 213 and the decision of the calcutta high court in rughuba dyal sahuv. bhikya lai misser i.l.r. 12 cal. 69, we find the lower appellate court is right in holding the suit to be not time-barred.4. the lower courts have found, as a fact, that the money was not advanced for tarwad necessity.5. this second appeal fails, therefore, and is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

1. It is contended, in the first instance, that the suit brought by the junior members of a tarwad is not maintainable. The karnavan is included as a defendant in the suit, and, as he has failed to sue till the period of twelve years has almost expired, we are of opinion that the suit by the junior members cannot be validly objected to.

2. The other question is whether the suit is time-barred

3. Applying the principle of the decision of this Court in Pachamuthu v. Chinnappan I.L.R. 10 Mad. 213 and the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Rughuba Dyal Sahuv. Bhikya Lai Misser I.L.R. 12 Cal. 69, we find the lower Appellate Court is right in holding the suit to be not time-barred.

4. The lower Courts have found, as a fact, that the money was not advanced for tarwad necessity.

5. This second appeal fails, therefore, and is dismissed with costs.

Same Parties Anantan vs Sankaran and ors. Same Subject Property;Civil Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Best, J.

Property;Civil