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

1991 Supreme(Ker) 9

PAREED PILLAY
Narayana Kurup – Appellant
Versus
Manoharan – Respondent


Judgment :-

Revision petitioner is the respondent in O.P.ZO of 1987. The First Additional Munsiff, Trichur permitted the respondents herein (petitioners in the O.P.) to deposit the amount of Rs. 2,000/- as stipulated in Ext. A2 will in the Court and allowed the revision petitioner (respondent in the O.P.) to withdraw the amount.

2.The contention of the revision petitioner is that no provision in the Indian Succession Act enables a party to approach the civil Court to make deposit of any amount meant for a legatee under a will and the Court below was not justified in allowing the respondents to make the deposit before the Court. The case of the respondents is that Lakshmikutty Amma, sister of their father executed a will and registered it before the Trichur Sub Registry Office, that as per the will the property belonging to Lakshmikutty Amma in Sy. No. 122/1 in Viyyur village was given to them, their brother Ravi Chandran and sister Bhagyalakshmi and that an amount of Rs.2,000/- was directed to be given to the revision petitioner. The revision petitioner was permitted to reside in the house in the property till his death. Though genuineness of the will. was disputed by the revision p



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