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

1963 Supreme(Ker) 17

M.MADHAVAN NAIR
BALAGOPALA PANICKER – Appellant
Versus
RAMANUNNI NAIR – Respondent


Judgment :-

1. These petitions are by the 32nd defendant and the 2nd defendant respectively praying to revise an order allowing amendment of the plaint in a suit for partition of the Moopil Sthanam and Elaya Sthanam properties of Mannarghat Sthanam. The plaintiff's right to partition of the properties, was originally based on the Madras Act 32 of 1955 treating the Sthanam properties as belonging to the tarwad of the Sthanamdars. That Act having been struck down by the Supreme Court, the plaintiff sought to amend the plaint to base his right to partition under S.7 (3) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Moopil Sthanamdar who was in Office when the latter Act came into force having passed away in the meanwhile.

2. The Court below allowed the plaint to be amended as prayed for, subject to removal from the plaint the Elaya Sthanam properties to which the Act did not apply. The Subordinate Judge observed that the cause of action is the plaintiffs right to partition and that that would remain unchanged in the amended plaint even though the enactment called to aid to stand the basis for the cause of action is changed. The Hindu Succession Act appeared prima facie to afford a cause of action t



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