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

1987 Supreme(SC) 506

M.M.DUTT, S.NATARAJAN
Thamma Venkata Subbamma – Appellant
Versus
Thamma Rattamma – Respondent


Advocates:
G.N.Rao, G.NARASIMHULU, G.Prabhakar, P.P.Rao, T.C.GUPTA, T.S.KRISHNAMURTHY IYER

Judgement

DUTT, J. :- The only point that is involved in this appeal by special leave is whether a gift by a coparcener of his undivided coparcenary interest to another coparcener is void or not.

2. In order to consider the point it is necessary to state a few relevant facts. Two brothers, Rami Reddy and Veera Reddy and the sons and daughters of the latter being respondents Nos. 2 to 7 herein, constituted a joint Hindu family governed by the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. On May 4, 1959, Rami Reddy executed a deed of settlement (Ex. A-1) in favour of his brother, Veera Reddy, conveying his entire undivided interest in the coparcenary reserving a life interest to himself and also providing that after his death, his brother should maintain his wife. Rami Reddy died in January, 1965 and shortly thereafter his brother Veera Reddy also died in March, 1965. It appears that after the death of Rami Reddy, differences arose between his widow and the respondent No. 1, as a result of which the widow of Rami Reddy (since deceased) demanded a partition of her husbands share which was gifted by her husband to his brother Veera Reddy. Thereafter, she filed a suit out of which this appeal arises fo


























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