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

1988 Supreme(Ker) 521

S.PADMANABHAN
K. H Krishna Iyer – Appellant
Versus
Parvathy Ammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S. Padmanabhan, J.

1. PW. 1 (father and power of attorney holder of plaintiffs) and the 1st defendant are the children of deceased Harihara Iyer, who had three other sons They were followers of Hindu Mitakshara law. The joint family had some little ancestral properties. There, were also self acquisitions in the names of the father and the sons. Harihara Iyer proceeded as if all these self acquisitions, whether in his name or in the names of his sons, were exclusively with his personal funds and belonging to him absolutely. On that assumption in 1124 he executed Ext. A4 styling it to be a settlement deed. All the ancestral properties and self acquisitions in the names of all the six persons were included in it and settled as if he is the absolute owner. He took one share for himself which includes plaint Schedule.4 cents and a residential building purchased in the name of the first defendant in 1123 under Ext. A3. Other properties were settled in the name of the sons separately excluding PW. 1 who is alleged to have relinquished his rights. He provided that during his life time his sons will not have any right and that he will be free to change the disposition and do anything





















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