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

1963 Supreme(Pat) 96

H.MAHAPATRA, TARKESHWAR NATH
Gulab Chand – Appellant
Versus
Sheo Karan Lall Seth – Respondent


Judgment

H.Mahapatra, J.

1. Plaintiffs are the appellants. Plaintiff No. 1, who was the widow of Rai Bahadur Ramnarain Lal Seth, died during the pendency of the appeal in this Court and no one was substituted in her place. Plaintiff No. 2, who was minor, has now become major and plaintiff No. 3 is still minor under the guardianship of his brother plaintiff No. 2. The suit was for partition of the joint family properties in which plaintiff No. 1 claimed one-fourth and the other plaintiff one-sixteenth each.

2. One Ganesh Ram Seth died leaving two sons Rai Bahadur Ramnarain Lal Seth and Baiju Lal Seth. The latter died on the 20th of October, 1913, leaving his widow Mt. Lakshmi Bai who was defendant No. 6 (respondent No. 5) in this appeal. Ramnarain Lal also died in 1932 leaving his widow Mt. Jaraw Bai (plaintiff No. 1) and three sons Sheo Prasad Lal, Sheo Karan Lal and Sheo Lal. These three sons of Ramnarain Lal were impleaded in the suit as defendants 3, 1 and 4, respectively. Defendant No. 2 is the son of Sheo Karan. Defendant No. 5 was Babu Lal, son of Sheo Lal who is now dead. Defendant No. 1 is also dead; but his son defendant No. 2 is already on re cord. Plaintiffs 2, 3 and 4 we







































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