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

1981 Supreme(SC) 182

O.CHHINNAPPA REDDY, A.C.GUPTA
Tharayil Sarada – Appellant
Versus
Govindan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

In this case, the High Court in second appeal allowed the plaintiff to amend the plain to include a prayer for partition of the disputed property and straightway passed a preliminary decree declaring plaintiffs 1/4th before us, it is contended, and in our opinion rightly, that the High Court before making the decree should have given an opportunity to the defendant to file an additional written statement. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment and the decree and send the case back to the High Court to dispose of the appeal in accordance with law, after giving the defendant an opportunity to file an additional written statement. We express no opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the findings recorded by the High Court on other points. There will be no order as to costs.

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