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

1968 Supreme(AP) 136

K.MADHAVA REDDY, N.KUMARAYYA
Conugunta Subbarayudi – Appellant
Versus
Eluri Brahmanadan – Respondent


KUMARAYYA, J.

( 1 ) THIS petition which, on reference, is before us raises a short point, whether a settlee pendente lite of one of the items of suit property can be added as a party to an appeal brought by the plaintiff, as a person interested in the result thereof.

( 2 ) IT may be expedient to make a brief statement of facts which are in a narrow compass. Gonugunta Subbarayudu (petitioner-plaintiff) laid an action in the year 1959 for partition of joint family properties against his brother Srisailam, his mother Viramma, and two other persons, alienees of items 5 of the suit property. The brother did not survive long. He died leaving his mother as his only heir, who had already claimed in the suit that items 1 to 6 of the suit schedule property constituted her separate properties and hence could not be made available for partition. Her claim eventually was accepted but only in relation to item 1 and also item 6, which she had already settled on 17/05/1960, on her daughters son. Eluri Brahmanandam. The settlee did not choose to come on record as party to the suit. The decision in the suit went favourable to his interest. The plaintiff preferred his appeal in 1961. Some time therea

















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