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

1978 Supreme(Kar) 229

SABHAHIT
DODDA THIMMA NAIKA – Appellant
Versus
LAKSHMAIAH – Respondent


( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 31-1-1972 passed by the Addl. Civil Judge, Bangalore Dist. in R. A. No. 135 of 1966 on his file dismissing the appeal confirming the judgment and decree dated 6-7-1966 passed by the Addl. II Munsiff, Bangalore, in O. S. No. 420 of 1962 on his file dismissing the suit of the plaintiff for setting aside the alienation done by his guardian during his minority.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the plaintiff that when he was a minor, the suit property was alienated under Ex. D-l to defendants 2 to 5 on 6-11-1952 stating that there was pressure and it was necessitated by legal necessity. It is the case of the plaintiff that it was a property got by him under a will Ex. P 1 dated 12-5-1945 from his maternal grand-father and that his mother had no right to sell that property. He submitted that there was absolutely no legal necessity to sell the property and defendants 2 to 7 defrauded his parents in getting the sale deed executed. So, he prayed for setting aside the sale and possession of the property. Defendants resisted the suit. According to them, the sale was for legal necessity, they also stated that the suit was b






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