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

1984 Supreme(Ker) 272

FATHIMA BEEVI
KUNJULEKSHMI – Appellant
Versus
RAMAKRISHNAN – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. The plaintiff in a suit for partition is the appellant. The trial court in granting a preliminary decree has disallowed the plaintiff's claim for share in items 1, 2, 5, 6, 8 and 22 of the plaint schedule upholding the defendants 'contention that these items had been bequeathed by the plaintiff's mother under Ext. D11 will dated 18-1-1966. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff was unsuccessful, hence the second appeal.

2. The only question that now falls for consideration is whether Ext. D11 is a genuine will duly executed by the plaintiff's mother Gouri. Gouri died on 16-9-1966. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 4 are the children of Gouri. Defendants 5 to 12 are her grand children. These grand children are the beneficiaries under the will. Gouri had absolute right over 3 acres 45 cents of property and equity of redemption over another 1 acre and 43 cents. The property dealt with under Ext. D11 consists of 65 cents out of the 3 acres 45 cents and 87 cents out of the 1 acre 43 cents. The items 1 and 2,5,6.8 and 22 are thus included in the will in the schedules A to D thereof. The defendants 5 to 7, the children of the 2nd defendant are given the A schedule items;










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