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

1955 Supreme(AP) 22

UMAMAHESWARAM
Katragadda Virayya – Appellant
Versus
Katragadda Venkata Subbayya – Respondent


UMAMAHESWARAM, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal raises a difficult question of law. The plaintiff is the apellant and the appeal is confined only to item 2 of the plaint schedule. The suit was filed for partition and separte possession of a 2/3rd share in the land. The plaintiff and defendant are sons of two, brothers Akkayya and Ramaswami. The defendants father, Ramaswami, got himself divided from the joint family and took away his 1/4th share. The plaintiffs father died thereafter and as the plaintiff was unwilling to live jointly with the defendant, he called upon him to effect a partition of the properties and deliver to him his 2/3rd share. As there were crops on the land at the time, a letter makred as Ex. A-1 was executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. O. S. No. 318 of 1939 was filed by the plaintiff in the file of the District Munsifs Court, Repalle, for partition and separate possession of all the joint family properties. Item 2 of the plaint schedule in the present suit was included as item 8 in the plaint in O. S. No. 318 of 1939 District Munsifs Court, Repalle. The B Schedule attached to the plaint in the former suit related to the property alienated by the defendant.












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