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

1988 Supreme(Kar) 59

D.R.VITHAL RAO, K.A.SWAMI
MARIYAPPA K. S – Appellant
Versus
K. T. SIDDALINGA SETTY – Respondent


Advocates:
A.SHIVARAMAYYA, M.NANJUNDASWAMY

SWAMI, J, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is preferred by defendents 1 to 4 against the Judgment and decree dated 4th October 1976 passed by the learned IIIrd Additional Civil judge, Mysore, in 0 S. No. 127 of 1973. The trial Court has passed the decree in the following terms : in the result and for the foregoing reasons the suit is decreed with costs and it is declared that the decree in o S. No. 28/5253 was obtained by collusion. There shall be a Preliminary decree for partition of the suit properties. The partition of the immoveable properties assessed to land revenue shall be made under this decree by the deputy Commissioner or his gazetted subordinate duly authorised in that regard under Section 54 C. P C. The partition of moveables shall be effected by a Commissioner appointed in that regard. The profits due to the plaintiffs shall be ascertained in a separate enquiry under Or. 18 Rl. 18 C. P. C. Draw up a preliminary decree accordingly.

( 2 ) RESPONDENTS 1 to 4 are plaintiffs 1 to 4 and respondents 5 and 6 are defendants 5 and 6. Appellants 1 to 4 are defendants 1 to 4. In this Judgment, the parties will be referred to with reference to the position assigned to them in the trial Court.

















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