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

2015 Supreme(Kar) 767

B.MANOHAR
Pillamma – Appellant
Versus
Munithayamma – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: A. Chandrachud for M/s. A.C. Associates.

ORDER :

1. Petitioners are the defendants 1(a) to 1(d) in O.S. No. 176 of 2000. Being aggrieved by the order dated 2-12-2014 rejecting the application filed under Order 18, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, they have filed this writ petition.

2. Respondent 1 herein has filed a suit seeking for partition and separate possession and also declaration declaring that the sale deed dated 28-3-2003 executed by the first defendant in favour of the 2nd and 3rd defendants as null and void. The contesting deceased first defendant-Sanjeevappa had filed written statement. On the basis of the pleadings of parties, the Trial Court has framed necessary issues. Parties went for trial. After conclusion of the trial, the matter was posted for arguments. At that stage, plaintiff filed an application seeking for amendment of the plaint. Since the said amendment was unopposed, the Trial Court allowed the application. After the amendment of the plaint, the plaintiff examined himself as P.W. 1 and examined two more witnesses. In the meanwhile, the first defendant died. His legal representatives were brought on record. They are the petitioners before this Court. Though they have cross-examined P.Ws. 1 t



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