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

1997 Supreme(Kar) 21

H.N.TILHARI
POOVAMMA – Appellant
Versus
CHENNAMMA ALIAS PARVATHI AND OTHERS – Respondent


Advocates:
A.KESHAVA BHAT, A.MAHABALESVAR BHAT

H. N. TILHARI, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under Order 43, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure from the judgment and order dated 13-4-1994, passed by Sri G. T. Veerabhadrappa, Principal Civil Judge, Mangalore, on LA. No. 20 under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil procedure, hereinafter referred as, the 'code' which had been moved in the regular suit O. S. No. 87 of 1991, for partition of the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds into 383 equal shares taking into consideration the good and bad soil and allot and put the plaintiffs and defendants 1 to 9 in possession of 369 such shares and directing the defendants 95 to 136 to hand over possession of the same. The plaintiffs had also claimed future mesne profits at such rates as may be fixed by Court commensurate to their shares.

( 2 ) IN the application for appointment of Receiver made under Order 40, Rule 1 of the Code supported by affidavit, it had been stated that the entire property is being enjoyed by the defendants and the entire income therefrom is being misappropriated by the opposite parties-defendants, namely defendants 95, 103, 113 and 135. It had further been asserted that the four respondents have been cuttin















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