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

1944 Supreme(SC) 23

Narayan Jivangouda Patil and another – Appellant
Versus
Puttabai and others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Harold Shephard, T.L. Wilson and Co., V.K. Krishna Menon, J.M. Parikh, S.P. Khambatta, Sir Thomas Strangman

Sir Madhavan Nair:-

These are consolidated appeals from a judgment and two decrees of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated 14th January 1938, affirming a decree of the First Class Subordinate Judge of Dharwar dated 31st October 1936, and an order of that Judge dated 21st November 1936, The questions which arise in the appeals are; (1) Whether the plaintiffs' suit is barred by limitation. (2) Whether Narayan (plaintiff 1, hereinafter referred to as the appellant) was entitled to restitution or other relief consequent upon a decision of the Privy Council in ('33) 20 AIR 1933 PC 1 : 57 Bom. 157 : 60 IA 25 : 141 IC 9 (PC), Bhimabai Jivangounda v. Gurunath Gouda Khandappa Gouda hereinafter mentioned. The parties to the suit are Hindus governed by the Bombay School of the Mitakshara law. The table given below shows their relationship.

One Dyamangouda I and his three sons Nilkantgouda, Khadappagouda and Jivangouda formed a joint and undivided Hindu family. Dyamangouda died sometime before 1895 leaving him surviving, his three sons who took the family properties including the properties now in suit by survivorship. In 1895, Khadappagouda separated from his two brothers who continued




















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