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

1965 Supreme(Ker) 340

T.S.KRISHNAMOORTHY IYER
GOURI AMMA – Appellant
Versus
GOPALAKRISHNA PANICKER – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. This second appeal was heard by me on 1121965 and it was posted for delivery of judgment on 612 1965. On going through the records I found that defendants 3 to 6 who were also benefitted by the decree of the lower appellate court dismissing the suit were not made parties to the second appeal and therefore I felt that the appeal was not properly constituted. I mentioned this to the advocates on both sides who requested for a further hearing on this matter. The second appeal was therefore posted again in Chambers on 7121965 when the advocates on both sides were heard.

2. I am of the view that the second appeal has to fail on account of the non-impleading of defendants 3 to 6 as respondents to the appeal.

3. The plaintiff and the first defendant are the daughters of Pappi Amma who died in November 1954. Defendants 2 to 6 are the children of the first defendant. The parties are Nairs governed by the provisions of the Travancore Nair Act. The plaint items were purchased under the sale deed Ext. P-1 dated 1011 1121. Ext. P-1 is in favour of Pappi Amma and defendants 1 to 6. The consideration for Ext. P-1 is Rs. 2000/-. Ext. P-1 contains a recital that Rs. 1000/- was paid by











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