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

1971 Supreme(SC) 321

A.N.GROVER, K.S.HEGDE
Indranarayan – Appellant
Versus
Roop Narayan – Respondent


Advocates:
B.DUTTA, J.B.DADACHAN, K.RAJENDRA CHAUDHARY, M.V.PARANJAPE, P.C.BHARTARI, S.T.DESAI

Judgment

HEGDE, J.:- These appeals arise from a partition suit between two brothers. The plaintiff is the elder brother and the 1st defendant is his younger brother. The second defendant is the wife of the 1st defendant. The plaintiff and the 1st defendant are the sons of Dr. Sudarshan Pandit, a medical practitioner who practised at Indore. Dr. Pandit had extensive practice. He died on April 6, 1949 leaving behind him extensive properties. His wife had died in 1918. Dr. Pandit had three daughters. We are not concerned with them in this case. The contest is mainly between the plaintiff and the 1 st defendant. There is also a dispute as regards the ownership of a deposit of Rs. 50,000/- made by Dr. Pandit in the name of the second defendant.

2. The contention of the 1st defendant was that the plaintiff had separated himself from the rest of the family as far back as 1936 and therefore he is not entitled to any share in the suit properties. Further he took the plea that deposits of Rs. 41,000/- in the Bank of Indore and Rs. 50,000/- in Binod Mills which stood in the name of Dr. Pandit till about the third week of March, 1949 had been gifted to him. According to him Dr. Pandit gifted the

































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