SABHAHIT
DODDA THIMMA NAIKA – Appellant
Versus
LAKSHMAIAH – Respondent
( 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.