SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1962 Supreme(SC) 400

SYED JAFAR IMAM, J.R.MUDHOLKAR, K.SUBBA RAO, N.RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR
Venkata Reddy – Appellant
Versus
Pethi Reddy – Respondent


Judgment

MUDHOLKAR, J. : Only one question arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave and that is the meaning to be given to the expression final decision occurring in the first proviso to s. 28A of the Provincial insolvency Act, 1920 (Act No. 5 of 1920), introduced by Act No. 25 of 1948.

2. For appreciating the argument advanced before us a few facts have4 to be stated. Venkata Reddy, the father of the appellants, was adjudicated an insolvent by the Sub-Court, Salem in 1. P. NO. 73 of 1935. At that time only the appellants 1 and 2 were born while the third appellant was born later. The father s one-third share was put up for auction by the Official Receiver and was purchased by one Karuppan Pllai for Rs. 80/-. The Official Receiver then put up for auction the two-thirds share belonging to appellants 1 and 2 on July 27, 1936 which was purchased by the same person for Rs. 341/-. He sold the entire property to the respondent Pethi Reddy on May 25, 1939 for Rs. 300/-.

3. The appellants instituted a suit on February 1, 1943, for the partition of the joint family property to which suit they made Pethi Reddy a party and claimed thereunder two-thirds share in the property pu


















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top