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

2002 Supreme(Guj) 614

RAVI R.TRIPATHI
KANTILAL PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL – Appellant
Versus
DAHIBEN JAGDISH RATHOD – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.J.PATEL, D.D.Vyas

RAVI R. TRIPATHI, J.

( 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


















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