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

2016 Supreme(SC) 178

ANIL R.DAVE, ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
Pampati Sathamma (D)Th. Lrs. – Appellant
Versus
Pampat Gangaram – Respondent


JUDGMENT :

Anil R. Dave, J.

1. Applications for substitution are allowed.

2. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties at length.

3. We have considered the contents of the impugned Judgment as well as the inter-se relationship among the parties and in the interest of justice, we think it just and proper if the respondent gives 1/3rd of the properties in question to all the appellants i.e. the sister of the respondent and legal heirs of the deceased sister. 1/3rd of the properties or value thereof shall be given by the respondent to the appellants within six months from today.

4. According to the respondent, at present value of the property is approximately Rs. 60 lakhs. However, if the appellants do not agree to the said valuation, it would be open to them to raise the said contention in the appropriate proceeding before the Trial Court. The Trial Court would determine value of the property and pass appropriate order in the execution proceedings.

5. The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the appeals are allowed to the above extent 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