LexKUNJU KESAVAN versus M. M. PHILIP I. C. S. AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1963 Union of India '. La du Lal Jain 1963 634 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964) VOL. In view of what we have said above, we hold that the Union of India carries on the business of running railways and can be sued in the Court of tlie Subordinate Judge of Gauhati within whose terri- torial jurisdiction the headquarters of one of the railways run by the Union is situated. We accor- dinily dismiss the appeal with costs . ..4 ppwl lliami1aed. llUNJU KESA VAN "· M. M. PHILIP I. C. S. AND ORS. (A. K. SARKAR, M. HIDAYATULL.lH and J. C. SHAH JJ.) Travancort JJlzlava Act-Jlakkathayam properly-Nature and incidenta-Partibility-Tht meani11g of lht t:i:pm•iOll •con- trary inttntion' in•· 32 of tht Act-The righla of 'i8'uea' whtn there is exemption ui1dtr •· 33 of the Act-Queabon of tteemption not rai•td in written atatement-No i83ue framed-But evidtn.u led-Not objected by plaintif/1-Whtther vitiat.. the trial-Val• ation of tho •uil below twt'llly thousand-Certificate granted by tht High Court under Art. 133 of the Constitution valid-Constitu- tion of India, Art. 133-Travancore Ezhaw Act, 1100 (Act, III of 1100), ••· 2, 18,19,32,33. The property in the •nit originally belonged to one Bhag- avathi Parameswaram who created an otti in favour of one Krishnan Marthandam for 3500 fanama (about Rs. 500/-), Subsequently the latter created a chittoti, Bhagavathi Parame- swaram some years later (in 1163 M.E.) made a gift of the property to his wife Bhagavathi Valli. Bhagavathi Valli died in 1105 M.E. She bad an only son Sivaraman who was mar- ried to Parvathi Meenaksbi and had a son named Vasudevan. Sivaraman left Travancore in 1096 M.E. Both sides are agreed that he died thereafter. But there is no agreemeat aa 10 the date of hb death. Mccnakllhi a.id claimiD1 I \ 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 635 to be the heirs jointly sold thejenmom rights in 1123 M.E. to the present appellant. The appellant brought a suit for the redemption of the otti and recovery of possession of the pro- perty from the defendant (present respondent No. 1). The defendant denied that Bhagwathi Valli ever got the jtnmom right. He claimed to have obtained both the jenmom right as well as other rights. According to him on Bhagavathi Valli's death her sister B. Narayani and Narayani's daughter Gouri were heirs through whom he traced his title. He further contended that even if Meenakshi and Vamdevan got any jenmom right they lost it by the auction sale in O.S. No. 36 of 1100 M. E. For these reasons it was contended that the plain- tiff had no title to sue. It is admitted by both parties that the case is governed by the Travancore Ezhava Act, llOO. The trial court and the first appellate court decreed the suit but the High Court reversed the decision of the courts below hoLJing that the plaintiff had not obtained a valid title to the equity of redemption by the sale deed in his favour and was not entitled to redeem the property. The plaintiff there- upon appealed to this Court on a certificate granted by the High Court. A preliminary objection was raised by the respondent about the competency of the certificate granted by the High Court. It was contended that since the suit was valued at 3500 Janams (Rs. 500[-) \hi• valuation governed the suit for the purpose of the certificate and this value being below the prescribed minimum under Art. 133 of the Constitution the certificate was not competent. It was alternatively contended that if the valuation was more than Rs. 10,000 the trial court had no jurisdction to try the suit. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that the ordi- nary rule of law was that property was impartible and that . 1., 32 of the Act rrace a departure and imposed partibility on the Makkothayam property and the expression 'contrary intention' contemplated in s. 32 was an intention contrary to partibility and such an intention could not be spelled out from Ex. III the gift deed. It was contended that if the property was shared by Bhagavathi Valli with Sivaraman and Vasude- van, then Vasudevan would have the right to redeem the Otti as a person interested and so would the appellant, a transferee from him. Alternatively if the property became that of Bha- gavathi Valli alone then Vasudevan would be entitled to suc- ceed to the property left by Bhagavathi Valli by virtue of ss. 18 1963 Kunju K1savan .. M. M. Philip Kunju Ke5aian v. M.M. PMip 636 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1964
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.