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

2016 Supreme(SC) 25

ANIL R.DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
K. V. MURALIDHAR – Appellant
Versus
K. V. ANANDA RAO – Respondent


JUDGMENT

ANIL R. DAVE,J.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length.

Upon hearing the learned counsel, it appears that two important documents have not been properly considered by the High Court and no specific findings have been recorded thereon, namely;

1) compromise arrived at in O.S. No. 47/70 on 29.11.1975 and

2) a memorandum recording oral partition dated 10.11.1985.

We are of the view that specific findings ought to have been recorded on the aforesaid two documents so as to determine the rights of the parties.

In view of the aforesaid circumstances, we set aside the impugned judgment and remit the matter back to the High Court so that after hearing the concerned parties, the matter can be decided afresh. Needless to say that it would be open to the parties to raise all possible contentions before the High Court.

The parties shall appear before the High Court on 08.02.2016 so that the matter can be fixed for hearing on that date.

The civil appeals are disposed of as allowed with 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