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

1955 Supreme(AP) 227

UMAMAHESWARAM, VISWANATHA SASTRY, K.SUBBA RAO
NANDIPATI JANIKAMMA – Appellant
Versus
NANDIPATI MATTAREDDY – Respondent


UMAMAHESWARAM, J.

( 1 ) IF the alienation by the alleged adopted son does not furnish a cause of action to the reversioner his right to property not being affected, the suit by a reversioner will not fie under Sec. 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The alleged adopted son will only be in the position of a trespasser. Any alienation effected by a trespasser during the widow s life-time will not afford a cause of action to the reversioner as it will not amount to a denial of the title of the last male owner but only of the widow and there is consequently no danger to the inheritance. The status of the reversioner is also not affected by the alienation. Appeal against the Decree of the District Court, Guntur in Appeal Suit no. 322 of 1948 preferred against the Decree of the Court of the Subordinate judge of Guntur in Original Suit No. 113 of 1946. Messrs. K. V. Reddy, and S. V. Rami Reddy, for the Appellants. Messrs. A. Seetkapathi Rao and A. V. Krishna Rao, for the Respondents. Order of Reference to a Bench. Satyanarayana Rao, J. The defendants are the appellants in this Second Appeal. The suit was filed by the next presumptive reversioners to the estate of one late Venkata reddy who di

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