SUBRAHMANIA PATTAR Vs. NARAYANAN NAYAR
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The only question argued before us in this second appeal is whether the plaintiff can sue in his own name to recover certain property belonging to the devasom of the fourteenth defendant and demised on kanom to the first defendant.
(2.) In June 1892 the fourteenth defendant and the other adult members of the devasom executed to the plaintiff the document put in as exhibit Y which is called a lease alias Kuthaka Karar. This document has already been the subject of judicial interpretation by the High Court in Appeal No. 191 of 1898, and it was then held to be an authority coupled with an interest and was irrevocable.
(3.) The plaintiff's suit was dismissed both by the District Munsif and by the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the document did not enable the plaintiff to recover devasom properties in a suit brought in his own name.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.