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

2015 Supreme(SC) 1261

ANIL R.DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Susana Rani David – Appellant
Versus
Esther Jaspher Swaminathan – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

2. Leave granted.

3. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment and the facts pertaining to the case, we find that the main dispute in the appeals is only with regard to the share of defendant No.4-Victoria Srinivasan.

4. In the course of hearing of these appeals, the appellants had relied upon a sale deed dated 29th June, 2001 executed by defendant No.4, by virtue of which some property had been sold by her. The said document has not been exhibited before any court. The said sale deed is permitted to be placed on record so that it may be looked into by the High Court and consider its effects on the compromise deed entered into among some of the parties.

5. In these circumstances, we dispose of these appeals with a direction that a review application shall be filed by the appellants within four weeks from today before the High Court and the High Court shall permit the appellants to do the needful to get the said document exhibited.

6. The High Court shall consider the effect of the said sale deed after hearing the concerned parties and if necessary, may modify the impugned judgment and pass appropriate order in accordanc





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