9911796707
TMI Blog1963 (5) TMI 79X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome of the reversioners, viz., defendants 4, 5 and 7. According to the plaint the three plaintiffs were thus entitled to a 5/6th share of the properties while the 6th defendant was entitled as a reversioner of Chandrappa to the remaining 1/6th share. The property was however in the actual possession of the three sons of Nagayya who were impleaded as the first three defendants. 3. In contesting the suit these defendants denied that these properties had ever belonged to Chandrappa and further that the plaintiffs 1 and 2 or the defendants 4, 5, 6 and 7 were his reversioners. The main defence however was that even if the properties did belong to Chandrappa, the defendant's father Nagayya became entitled to these as Chandrappa's illatom ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by person who under a promise from the owner of the property that he would inherit the property marries not the daughter but some other relation of the owner of the property. The alternative contention which was raised before the High Court has however been repeated before us. It has been urged that there was a good and valid contract between Chandrappa and Nagayya, that is consideration of Nagayya marrying Mangamma and looking after Chandrappa's property, Chandrappa would make him his heir and that the consequence of this contract was that Nagayya became Chandrappa's heir. The question here is not whether on Chandrappa's death Nagayya could have obtained specific performance of the alleged contract. For, assuming that there was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hts of a co-sharer and further, as there was complete adoption or ratification of the father's contract by the first defendant he ought to be held to it and the plaintiff was therefore a co-sharer in the property. 8. It has to be mentioned that this case was decided long before the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 was enacted and the question whether a written document was necessary for transfer did not come up for consideration. 9. In Bhalla Nahana v. Prabhu Hari (1877) 2 I.L.R. Bom. 67., which was the next case cited, what happened was that one Gosai Ramji induced the parents of the defendant Prabhu Hari to give him in adoption by an express promise to settle his property upon the boy but died before such settlement could be executed. N ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , said that even apart from the law, the adopted son would be so entitled. It is difficult to see how this can be of any assistance in solving our present problem. 12. Lastly, the learned Counsel relied on the decision of the Privy Council in Malraju Lakhmi Venkayyamma v. Ventaka Narasimha Appa Rao. The main question in controversy in that case was whether there was a completed contract by which the Rani, the former owner of the property had agreed that the possession of the property would be given to her niece Venkayyamma Rao immediately upon the expiry of her life interest. The Privy Council held that there was such completed contract and directed the Receiver to deliver possession upon the terms of the contract now affirmed . 13. It may ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
