Back
M. A. ABDUL HAKHIM
Santha bai, w/o. Krishna prabhu – Appellant
Versus
Anusuya bai, w/o. Ranganatha kamath – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Plaintiffs in a suit for mandatory injunction and damage are the appellants. Reliefs are sought with respect to plaint B schedule building. Plaint A Schedule property is 9 ½ cents of land in Sy No.1914/2 of Mattanchery village, together with a building bearing CC No. 8/1825 and Shop rooms bearing CC No. 8/1822 and 8/1823 situated therein. Plaint B Schedule property is the northern portion of the building bearing CC No. 8/1825, consisting of 10 rooms, including a kitchen.
2. The Plaintiffs are the wife and son of Krishna Prabhu, who derived the plaint schedule properties as per Ext.A1 Settlement deed of 1985 executed by his mother, Padmavathy. Padmavathy died, and Krishna Prabhu died on 23.12.2010.
3. The defendants are the children of Saraswathy Bhai, who is the sister of late Krishna Prabhu. Saraswathy Bhai died on 29.09.2012. Her husband, Narayana Pai, predeceased her in the year 1998.
4. Ext.A1 Settlement deed contained a clause that Saraswathy Bhai, her husband, and children who have been residing in the residential building in A schedule will have the right to live therein during the lifetime of the said persons.
5. As per the plaint allegations, the right of residenc
The court established that a life interest in property does not constitute a license and that provisions of Section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply when a life interest is created.
The stipulations in a settlement deed do not confer absolute rights to a transferee, rendering subsequent sale deeds void if executed without such rights.
Hindu Law – property given to wife - Property had been given to the female Hindu in recognition of or in lieu of her right to maintenance, it was held that the situation fell within the ambit of subs....
The court ruled that an absolute bequest in a Will prevails over any subsequent conflicting clauses, affirming the testator's intention as paramount.
The court established that Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act does not confer rights over a property that is not a dwelling house, particularly when the plaintiffs failed to prove their claim....
The court established that a widow with absolute rights under a will can validly sell property, and allegations of coercion must be substantiated with evidence.
Section 44 of the Transfer of Property Act does not apply if the property in question is not a habitable dwelling house and the plaintiffs fail to establish their claim.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
