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

1972 Supreme(SC) 268

K.S.HEGDE, A.N.GROVER
Padmaraja – Appellant
Versus
Dhanavathi – Respondent


Advocates:
K.N.BHATT, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, SVARANJIT AHUJA

Judgment

HEGDE, J.:- This is an appeal by special leave Defendants 34 and 35 in the suit are the appellants. The suit from which this appeal arises is a suit for partition under the Madras Aliyasantana Act, 1949 (Madras Act IX of 1949) (which will hereinafter be referred to as the Act).

2. The two questions that arise for decision in this appeal are: (1) whether under the award decree Exh. A-2, the kutumba (family) of the plaintiffs and the defendants stood partitioned and (2) if the answer to the first question is in the negative whether the said award decree comes within the scope of S.36 (6) of the Act.

3. The plaintiffs and the defendants were governed by the aliyasantana law of inheritance. It is a matriarchal system of law. One Pammadi was the propositus of the family. She had two daughters by name Pammakke and Dejappe and three sons viz. Kanthu Hegde, Monu Hegde and Manjappa Hegde. After the death of Pammadi differences arose in the family. Hence all the major members of the family excepting one Brahamiah referred those disputes to the arbitration of four arbitrators by means of a mutchallika dated December 14, 1886. By the time this mutchallika was executed two of the sons of





















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