K.S.PARIPOORNAN, B.P.JEEVAN REDDY
Arora Enterprises LTD. – Appellant
Versus
Indubhushan Obhan – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Paripoornan, J.-Special leave granted. I.A. Nos. 5 and 6 of 1997 to implead M/s. Kamal Construction Co. (a partnership firm) as additional respondent in the appeals, are allowed.
2. There are three appellants in these appeals. Appellant No. 1 is a firm wherein appellant Nos. 2 and 3 are partners. Appellants were original plaintiffs in Suit No. 133/89 in the High Court of Bombay. These two appeals are preferred against the judgment and orders dated 10.7.1996 passed by a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 464/96 and 513/96, dismissing the appeals. The first respondent was originally the first defendant. Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(d) are his legal heirs. Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are co-owners of the property in question. Respondent No. 4 is M/s. Kamal Construction Co. (a firm).
3. Original defendant No. 1, Indubhushan M. Obhan, died pending the suit. He owned and possessed 1/3rd undivided share in the property measuring 20569.51 sq. mts. situate in Kanjur village, Kurla Taluk, Bombay. The other two co-owners are his brothers. Indubhushan was adjudicated as an insolvent on 29.7.1971. Evidently, this aspect seems to have been published in the Gazette and al
Satyadhyan Ghosal and others v. Smt. Deorajin Debi and another
Ratnavelu Chettiar v. Franciscu Udayar and others
Ps.Ar.Ar. Arunachalam Chettiar v. Narayanaswami Gounder
Gamoji Venkata Ramakrishnarao v. Gullapalli Sambamurti
Davood Mohideen Rowther v. Sahabdeen Sahib
Bai Pani Vankar v. Madhabhai Galabhai Patel
Subbaiah Goundan v. Ramasami Goundan and others
Bhyradevanhalli Lingappa v. Official Receiver, Bellary, AIR 1937 Mad. 717-718
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.