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

1971 Supreme(SC) 81

S. M. SIKRI, V. BHARGAVA, I. D. DUA
A. J. Pinto – Appellant
Versus
Sahebbi Kom Muktum Saheb (Dead) By L. Rs – Respondent


Judgment

DUJA, J. : These two civil appeals by special leave (Nos 901 and 902 of 1966) are directed against the judgments and orders of the Mysore High Court at Bangalore dated June 30, 1964 and October 30, 1964 respectively. By means of the judgment and order dated October 30, 1964 the High Court rejected applications for review of its order dated June 30, 1964. Civil Appeal No. 902 of 1966 was not pressed by the learned counsel for the appellant with the result that that appeal must be dismissed. We make no order as to costs in that appeal.

2. The present controversy arises out of execution proceedings in respect of decree in a partition suit instituted by one Sahebbi, a member of a Muslim family. The suit was instituted by her for partition by metes and bounds and for possession of her share in the property left by her grandfather Mirsab. It would be helpful at this stage to reproduce the pedigree table of the family:

In the plaint reference was made to some alienations, which, it was pleaded, were not binding on the plaintiff. In this appeal we are only concerned with the mortgage decree obtained by one L.B. Pinto (original defendant No. 12 in the suit) on whose death A. J. Pinto

















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