http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER: 1. R. MUTHAMMAL (Died)2. PARAMESWARI THAYAMMAL
Vs.
RESPONDENT: SRI SUBRAMANIASWAMI DEVASTHANAM,TIRUCHENDUR
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 14/01/1960
BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. DAS, S.K. SARKAR, A.K.
CITATION: 1960 AIR 601 1960 SCR (2) 729
ACT: Hindu Law-Exclusion from inheritance-Lunacy, if must be congenital.
HEADNOTE: A Hindu was found to be a lunatic when succession opened. It was claimed that under the texts lunacy must be congenital to exclude from inheritance. Held, under the Hindu law lunacy as distinct from idiocy need not be congenital to exclude from inheritance, if it existed when succession opened. Muthusami v. Meenammal. (1920) I.L.R. Mad. 464, Wooma Parshad Roy v. Grish Chunker Prochundo, (1884) I.L.R. 10 Cal. 639 and Deo Kishen v. Budh Prakash, (1883) I.L.R. 5 All. 509 (F.B.)approved. Murarji Gokuldas v. Parvatibai, (1876) I.L.R. 1 Bom. 177 and Sanku v. Puttamma, (1891) I.L.R. 14 Mad. 289, disapproved.
JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.200 of 1955. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated January 20, 1943, of the Madras High Court in A. S. No. 392 of 1943, arising out of the judgment and decree dated March 30, 1943, of the Sub Judge, Tuticorin in O. S. No. 34 of 1939. S. V. Venugopalachariar and S. K. Aiyangar, for the appellant No. 2. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganaa...