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

1980 Supreme(AP) 116

A.SEETHARAM REDDY, C.KONDAIAH
Yarlagadda Nayudamma – Appellant
Versus
Government Of A. P. – Respondent


SEETHARAMA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) IN this reference the point that falls for our consideration is when a member of a coparcenary governed by Mitakshara School is given in adoption, whether his undivided interest in the coparcenary property would continue to vest in him even after adoption by reason of the proviso (b) to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). The answer chiefly turns upon the construction of the language employed, in particular, in proviso (b) to Section 12 of the Act. Before reaching the conclusion by the processual interpretation of the said provisions, the relevant facts may briefly be noticed.

( 2 ) THE petitioner in C. R. P. No. 103/79 is one Nayudamma (male ). Lakshmamma, the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 104/79 is his widowed mother and the petitioner in C. R. P. No. 105/79 is his son. Nayudamma has another son by name Sree Rama Prasad, who was given in adoption on 20-8-1970 to one R. Rattamma, who filed the declaration in C. C. 2216/75. The petitioners in the present Civil Revision Petitions and the aforesaid Rattamma claim that the adopted son is entitled to a share in the lands belonging to the natural fami



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