THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN, S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN
Ramakke – Appellant
Versus
Gopi – Respondent
THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J.
1. The surviving defendants in a suit for partition are the appellants. Mundappa Gatty had three children; a son Manju Gatty and daughters Birmage and Korappalu. Manju Gatty died issueless and intestate and his right also devolved on the sisters and the plaintiffs are the heirs of Korappalu. They accordingly sued for partition.
2. The defendants contended that Manju Gatty was himself the cultivating tenant of the property in question, he having obtained lease from Vakil Narasimha Naik and had, along with the heirs of Narasimha Naik, filed J Form under the Kerala Land Reforms Act and obtained Ext.A8 order of assignment and certificate regarding the property in question and Manju Gatty who remained unmarried and issueless had executed Ext.B1 Will in favour of the 2nd defendant, who is the son of the 1st defendant.
3. The fact that Ext.A8 purchase certificate is issued by the Land Tribunal in favour of the 2nd defendant is admitted by the plaintiffs, even going by the plaint averments, in as much as, they plead the said fact; do not impeach it as a fraudulent action before the Land Tribunal; but contended that the benefit of Ext.A8 inured to
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.