Koodalmanickam in Devaswom Managing Committee Vs. Thachudaya Kaimal @ Manickan Keralan (dead) by Lrs.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No.1057 of 1978
Petitioner: Koodalmanickam in Devaswom Managing Committee
Respondent: Thachudaya Kaimal @ Manickan Keralan (dead) by Lrs.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No.1057 of 1978
Judges: K. RAMASWAMY & B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Feb 07, 1996
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
Right in personam upheld by the High Court – Pending appeal the respondent died and the property taken over by the appellant- committee – Right to enjoy the property, even assuming that the order is correct, is his right only in personam and on his demise the right ceases to exist.
Right in personam upheld by the High Court – Pending appeal the respondent died and the property taken over by the appellant- committee – Right to enjoy the property, even assuming that the order is correct, is his right only in personam and on his demise the right ceases to exist.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. This appeal by special arises from the order dated March 31, 1978 of the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No.1006/1976. The sole respondent instituted a suit against the appellant contending that the properties were a part of the residential premises given to him in personam for his personal benefit under a decree of the British Resident for the State of Travancore Cochin, consequentially, he is entitled to enjoy the income or the usufruct for occupation during his tenure. The trial Court and the appellate Court dismissed the suit but in Second Appeal the learned single Judge allowed the appeal and held that he is entitled to the enjoyment of the income or usufruct for occupation. Pending appeal, the respondent died. We are informed that appellant- committee has taken over the property. Right to enjoy the property even assuming that the order is correct is his right only in personam and on his demise the right ceases to exist. Consequently, nothing would survive in this case for decision.
2. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
1. This appeal by special arises from the order dated March 31, 1978 of the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court in Second Appeal No.1006/1976. The sole respondent instituted a suit against the appellant contending that the properties were a part of the residential premises given to him in personam for his personal benefit under a decree of the British Resident for the State of Travancore Cochin, consequentially, he is entitled to enjoy the income or the usufruct for occupation during his tenure. The trial Court and the appellate Court dismissed the suit but in Second Appeal the learned single Judge allowed the appeal and held that he is entitled to the enjoyment of the income or usufruct for occupation. Pending appeal, the respondent died. We are informed that appellant- committee has taken over the property. Right to enjoy the property even assuming that the order is correct is his right only in personam and on his demise the right ceases to exist. Consequently, nothing would survive in this case for decision.
2. The appeal is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
