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