Posted On by &filed under High Court, Madras High Court.


Madras High Court
Devaguptapu Peda Satyanarayana, … vs Gopalapati Sarasamma And Ors. on 11 September, 1908
Equivalent citations: (1908) 18 MLJ 603


JUDGMENT

1. One Venkappa, deceased, was Kurnam of Koduru. He had two daughters, one the 1st defendant and, other the mother of the plaintiff. Venkappa died in 1901 and the plaintiff, who was then a minor, was registered as Venkappa’s heir under Section 13 of Madras Act II of 1894. The lands which, formed the emoluments of the Kurnam’s office were in 1903 enfranchised in the name of the 1st defendant, the plaintiff being then still a minor and his mother being dead. The plaintiff now sues for, the cancellation of the pattah issued in the name of the ist defendant and for issue of pattah in his own name. He failed in both the Courts below. We think the plaintiff’s suit was rightly dismissed. At the time of the enfranchisement of the ist defendant the plaintiff was not Venkappa’s heir in respect of any other property of his. The plaintiff’s claim is based before us, not on the ground that he has actually been appointed Kurnam at the time of the enfranchisement, but on the ground that he had-been registered as Venkappa’s heir as above-mentioned. As was observed in Venkata v. Rama (1884) I.L.R. 8 M. 249 at p. 263 the plaintiff, if he had been appointed to the office before the land was enfranchised, might have a foundation for his claim to the lands. But the question is whether mere registration under Section 13 of the Madras Act II of 1894 gives the plaintiff the right which he seeks to enforce. The effect of such registration is merely to declare that the person registered is entitled, on attaining majority, or within three years thereafter, to be appointed to the office, provided he is duly qualified. In the meantime the duties of the office are to be performed by some other qualified person. Till enfranchisement the inam, of course, continued to be attached to the office, but at the time of enfranchisement there was no good ground for passing over the ist defendant and issuing pattah in the name of the plaintiff who was not the office-holder then and who might never be appointed to the office.

2. We, therefore, dismiss the second appeal with costs.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.142 seconds.