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

1987 Supreme(AP) 325

K.RAMASWAMY
I. PULLA REDDY – Appellant
Versus
I. Seshi Reddy – Respondent


K. RAMA SWAMY, J.

( 1 ) THE two unsuccessful plaintiffs are the appellants. They are theson and daughter respectively of the first defendant. The parties as arrayed in the lower Court are described in the appeal as well. Their suit for partition was dismissed. Thus they filed this appeal.

( 2 ) THE undisputed facts are that the second defendant is the fatherof the first and third defendants. The appellants are the children of the first defendant. The second defendant died pending appeal. His widow, the fourth respondent, and his two daughters, the fifth and the sixth respondents, are impleaded as legal represntatives. They are also termed as defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6 for the purpose of continuity. a schedule property consists of immovable properties of an extent of Ac. 33-71 cents. b schedule property consists of movables and cash and their total value is rs. 35,300/ -. The extents of these lands and their existence have not been disputed.

( 3 ) THE case of the plaintiffs is that all these properties are coparcenaryproperties; and that by birth the first plaintiff is entitled to his share in the coparcenary. The 2nd plaintiff is entitled to maintenance and marriage expenses. The
















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