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

2021 Supreme(Kar) 874

R. NATARAJ
JAYAMMA – Appellant
Versus
RATHNAMMA – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
N. Uma Shankar.

JUDGMENT :

R. Nataraj, J.

1. These Revision Petitions are filed by the defendant No. 7 in O.S.No. 2791/2010 pending trial before the IX Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Bengaluru (henceforth referred as 'Trial Court') challenging an order dtd. 12/2/2016, by which an application filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of CPC was rejected.

2. A suit in O.S.No. 2791/2010 was filed for partition and separation possession of the undivided right title and interest of the plaintiff in suit schedule property. The suit was contested by defendant No. 7, who also filed an application under Order VII Rule (a) and (d) of CPC to reject the plaint.

3. Defendant No. 7 contended in the application that the suit property was purchased by Melappa the grandfather of the plaintiff in terms of the sale deed dtd. 1/3/1946 and that defendant No. 1 was his only son, who succeeded to the property. Thus, it was contended that the said property was the absolute property of defendant No. 1. It is claimed that defendant No. 1 had executed an agreement of sale in favour of defendant No. 7. After a partition between the family members, the defendant Nos.2 and 3 had executed a sale deed dtd. 23/3/2006 in fav

    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