PADMANABHAN
GOPALAN – Appellant
Versus
VASU – Respondent
1. Plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant. Defendant is his brother. They are sons of the same father and mother. They are also the only heirs of their mother. The property sought to be partitioned is the only asset that belonged to the mother, who died. Defendant raised various contentions including adverse possession, lease-hold right and partial partition. The plea of partial partition was heard as a preliminary issue and it was found that the suit is not bad for partial partition. Thereafter, the defendant amended the written statement and contended that the plaintiff has not included those properties which devolved on the mother as heir of her deceased husband namely the father of the plaintiff and defendant. The Munsiff negatived all the contentions including the plea that the suit is bad for partial partition. The suit was decreed. But in appeal the Subordinate Judge, Palghat accepted the plea of partial partition and dismissed the suit. Hence the plaintiff came up in second appeal.
2. Even in the amended written statement it is not specified what are the items of properties left out. There was only a vague statement that the properties inherited by th
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.