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

1966 Supreme(SC) 87

A.K.SARKAR, J.R.MUDHOLKAR, R.S.BACHAWAT
Himmatrao: Laxman Vinayak Bhave – Appellant
Versus
Jaikisandas – Respondent


Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, G.L.SANGHI, M.R.Krishna Pillai, S.G.PATVARDHAN, S.T.DESAI, W.S.Barlingay

Judgement

MUDHOLKAR, J.: Both these appeals arise out of a suit instituted by Himmatrao, appellant in C. A. 1034 of 1963 for declaration that he is owner of 1 anna 5 pies share in the village Mozara, District Yeotmal and for partition and separate possession of the property that would fall to the aforesaid share. Certain other reliefs were also prayed for by him; but it is not necessary to refer to them for the purpose of deciding these appeals. To this suit he joined other co-sharers in the village as well as alienees from some of their co-sharers. This suit was instituted by him on December 7, 1939 and was partially decreed on July 31, 1944 by the court of Sub-Judge, second class, Darwha. He preferred an appeal from the decree of the trial court. So also Pusaram, one of the defendants to the partition suit preferred an appeal from the decree of the trial court and some other defendants preferred cross-objection against that decree. The appeal of Himmatrao was allowed while that of Pusaram was dismissed. The cross-objections of Jugalkishore and Jaykumar succeeded while that of Laxman Vinayak who is the appellant s brother in C. A. 1035 of 1963 was dismissed. Pusaram preferred two a









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