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

Madras High Court
Venkata Subba Row vs Purushottam And Ors. on 11 February, 1902
Equivalent citations: (1902) 12 MLJ 262


1. Even assuming that under the Hindu Law texts, in case the lameness was congenital there would be a bar, a matter regarding which we give no opinion, it is admitted in the present case that the lameness was not congenital and that the plaintiff for years after his birth had the use of his limbs.

2. No case has been quoted where any court has held that lameness, congenital or otherwise, is a bar to inheritance. In the only case that has been quoted Futtick Chunder Chatterjee v. Juggut Mohinee Dabee 21 W.R. 348 the decision proceeds upon the assumption that lameness would be no bar unless it were proved that the person proposed to be excluded was a cripple from birth. Such being the case, we cannot uphold the decision Of the Subordinate Judge.

3. We must, therefore, set aside the decree of both courts and hold that there should be a partition and that the plaintiff is entitled to a one-half share in the lands and houses in Chinamutevi village (as per Schedule A) with costs throughout and mesne profits amounting to Rs. 126 for the three years prior to the suit, and subsequent mesne profits up to the date of delivery of the plaintiff’s share after partition, such profits to be ascertained in execution.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.137 seconds.