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


Madras High Court
Venkayya vs Lakshmayya on 15 September, 1892
Equivalent citations: (1893) ILR 16 Mad 98
Bench: A J Collins, Kt., Parker


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.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

66 queries in 0.294 seconds.