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

1979 Supreme(Ker) 232

V.KHALID
Devassia Mathew – Appellant
Versus
Mathai – Respondent


JUDGMENT

V. Khalid, J.

1. The rigour of the statutory mandate contained in section 213 of the Indian Succession Act (for short the Act) falls for consideration in this Second Appeal. The defendant-appellant assails the decrees of the courts below on the ground that they have been passed without jurisdiction since the right enforced by the decree was based on an unprobated Will. The plaintiff-respondent support's the decrees with the plea, that the right claimed is not on the strength of the Will but on the strength of the earlier decrees between the parties in which the Will was not questioned.

2. The suit was for a declaration of title and for recovery of possession. Item 1 is a garden land and Item 2 a building standing on it. One Augusthy Thommen had executed Ext. A-4 Will in favour of the plaintiff, who is his son-in-law. The defendant is the son of Kathri, the youngest daughter of Thommen. Under Ext. A-4 the suit properties were bequeathed to the plaintiff, reserving life interest in favour of the testator's wife, Anna and his daughter, Kathri. The testator died in 1115 M.E. His widow was, thereafter, in possession of the property. She was residing in the house with Kathri and he



















































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