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

1969 Supreme(AP) 119

A.GOPAL RAO
Tadepalli Ram Rathnam – Appellant
Versus
Kantheti Varadarajulu – Respondent


A. GOPAL RAO, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises a short but important question and is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Machilipatnam given on 27/03/1967.

( 2 ) THE short facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 are the daughters of one K. Venkatakrishnaiah, a resident of Vijayawada. Defendants 1 to 3 are his sons and the 8th defendant is his wife. Venkatakrishnaiah was the owner of the immovable property described in the plaint schedule which was his self acquired property. Venkatakrishnaiah was seen for the last time in the last week of December, 1955. From then he was not heard of by those who ought to know about him. The plaintiff claimed 1/9th share in the plaint schedule property on the ground that Venkatakrishnaiah would be presumed to have died either at the end of seven years form the date when he was last seen as he was not heard of for over seven years since then or in any case on the date of the suit, and consequently she is entitled to that share under the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956 ).

( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that no such presumption can be made and that the plainti













































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