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

1953 Supreme(Kar) 13

VASUDEVAMURTHY
NARASIMHAIAH – Appellant
Versus
CHIKKATHIMMAIAH – Respondent


( 1 ) THE facts of this case are not in dispute. The defendant is the son of one Dodda Thimmian who was a member of Hindu Joint family with him and who is now dead. During his lifetime, he had sold to the plaintiff a small piece of land measuring about an acre described in the A schedule to the plaint (which will be referred to hereafter as the suit land) and had put him in possession. After his death the defendant and another younger brother of his, who is also now dead, tried to disturb the plaintiff's possession and he therefore brought a suit in O. S. No. 3 of 42-43 on the file of the Munsif, Tumkur, against them for a permanent injunction. It was held in that suit that the plaintiff was entitled to retain possession of the suit land and that Dodda Thimmiah's sons might get their shares divided arid separated by a suit of their own for partition if the alienation by their father was found not binding on them. Accordingly they filed a suit O. S. No. 208/44-45 against the plaintiff for partition and possession of their 2/3rds share. At that time, an appeal by the sons of Dodda Thimmiah against the decision in O. S. No. 3/42-43 was pending before the subordinate Judge. The present









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