Venkayya Vs. Lakshmayya

Venkayya vs Lakshmayya

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 15, 1892

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/789015

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/789015
Court: Chennai
Judge: Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Parker, J.
Decided On: Sep 15, 1892
Subject: Family

Case Summary

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

Hindu law - Partition of part of family property--Suit for ejectment. -

Key legal issue: Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Venkayya

Respondent

Lakshmayya

Legal References

Cases Referred: Chinna Sanyasi v. Suriya I.L.R.
Reported In: (1893)ILR16Mad98

Excerpt

hindu law - partition of part of family property--suit for ejectment. - 1. the district judge has reversed the decree of the district munsif on the ground that a suit to enforce partition in a specific item of the immoveable property of the family is not maintainable. we think this decision is right. the general rule is that a suit will not lie for a partial partition of family property. in this case the action is really one in ejectment, and the plaintiff, if he established that first defendant is a trespasser, can claim to eject him, notwithstanding that his brother supports a false title which first defendant sets up.2. the case is not similar to chinna sanyasi v. suriya i.l.r. 5 mad. 196 as here there has been no alienation by a coparcener to a stranger.3. the plaintiff, if he does not choose to sue for partition of the whole estate, can sue to eject first defendant from the house, making his brothers, who refuse to join as co-plaintiffs, defendants, in the suit.4. the second appeal fails, and we dismiss it with costs.

Full Judgment

1. The District Judge has reversed the decree of the District Munsif on the ground that a suit to enforce partition in a specific item of the immoveable property of the family is not maintainable. We think this decision is right. The general rule is that a suit will not lie for a partial partition of family property. In this case the action is really one in ejectment, and the plaintiff, if he established that first defendant is a trespasser, can claim to eject him, notwithstanding that his brother supports a false title which first defendant sets up.

2. The case is not similar to Chinna Sanyasi v. Suriya I.L.R. 5 Mad. 196 as here there has been no alienation by a coparcener to a stranger.

3. The plaintiff, if he does not choose to sue for partition of the whole estate, can sue to eject first defendant from the house, making his brothers, who refuse to join as co-plaintiffs, defendants, in the suit.

4. The second appeal fails, and we dismiss it with costs.

Same Parties Venkayya vs Lakshmayya Same Subject Family Same Judge Arthur J.H. Collins, Kt., C.J. and ;Parker, J.

Family