RAVI R.TRIPATHI
KANTILAL PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL – Appellant
Versus
DAHIBEN JAGDISH RATHOD – Respondent
( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal arises from the judgement and decree dated 19. 7. 1980 passed by the learned Assistant Judge, Valsad at Navsari in Regular Civil Appeal No. 9 of 1978 whereby the learned Assistant Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and set aside the judgement and decree passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge (Junior Division), Navsari dated 30. 12. 1977 in Regular Civil Suit no. 3 of 1976. The facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the suit for the following reliefs:"for declaration that the sale deed dated 29. 10. 1971 (exh. 22), executed by the deceased Jagdishbhai Lallubhai Rathod, the husband of the plaintiff Dahiben and father of four minor children on whose behalf the plaintiff Dahiben had pursued the remedy in favour of the defendants, was in respect of the ancestral property of Undivided Hindu Family (HUF) and that the same was sold without any necessity and was not for the benefit of the estate and therefore, not binding to the minors. It was also prayed that the plaintiff, Dahiben had a charge over the property for maintenance and that the possession and share of the minors in the suit property be awarded. "
( 2 ) THE subject mat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.