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

1965 Supreme(Ker) 345

S.VELU PILLAI, T.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY IYER, ANNA CHANDY
KUMARASWAMI MUDALIAR – Appellant
Versus
RAJAMANIKKAM UDAYAR – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. Defendants 1 and 2 are the appellants. The first appellant died and his legal representatives have been impleaded as additional appellants 3 to 9. The facts relevant for the disposal of the appeal are stated here. Respondents 24 and 25 are brothers, being the sons of Karuppudayan. Respondents 1 and 2 who instituted the suit in the court below are the sons of the 24th respondent. It is admitted by both sides that these parties are governed by Hindu Mitakshara Law. The suit properties were demised on verumpattom by the Cochin Sirkar in favour of a tarwad. The rent due to the Cochin Sirkar under the demise was Rs. 1224-8-2 per annum. Karuppudayan got an assignment of the verumpattom right from the members of the tarwad and after his death it devolved on respondents 24 and 25, who executed an assignment Ext. B-5 dated 4-6-1937 in favour of Karuppaswami Chettiar. The rights under Ext. B-5 were assigned by Karuppaswami Chettiar under Ext. B-1 dated 10-7-1940 to the first appellant & his brother Perumal Mudaliar. Respondents 3, 4 & 5 are the sons of Perumal Mudaliar. The right under Ext. B-1 was partitioned between the first appellant on the one hand and respondents 3 to 5










































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