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

1988 Supreme(Ker) 339

PADMANABHAN
BHARGAVI AMMA – Appellant
Versus
BHASKARA PILLAI – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Defendant, in a suit for partition filed by her brother, is the appellant. A and B schedule properties sought to be partitioned were allotted to their brother Prabhakaran Pillai and sister Bhanu Amma as per Ext.A1 partition of 1959 entered into between plaintiff and defendant. Bhanu Amma and Prabhakaran Pillai did not join Ext.Aland it is stated that they were residing outside the State. It is not disputed that more than 40 years ago when the parents died leaving these four children alone, the above two left the State and never returned for residence here. That they were not here even at the time of Ext.A1 is an admitted fact. In Ext.A1 the shares allotted to these two persons were given possession to the defendant to be banded over to them when they, come back with a further direction that plaintiff should not disturb her possession. It is also an admitted fact that if these two persons died the only heirs are the plaintiff and defendant, each being entitled to one-half.

2. After issuing Ext. A2 notice and getting Ext. A3 reply from the defendant, the suit was filed in 1982 on the allegation that even before and after Ext.A1 these two persons were not beard of and he









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