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

1976 Supreme(Mad) 526

V.SETHURAMAN
Muthalu Ammal – Appellant
Versus
A. V. Amudham alias Pichamani – Respondent


Advocates:
S. Kothandarama Nayanar, K. Swamidurai and J. Srinivasan, for Appellant.
K. Parasurama Iyer, for Respondent.

Judgment:-The defendant is the appellant. The plaintiff claimed the suit property as belonging to him by virtue of a purchase under a document dated 9th May, 1952 executed by one Muruga Padayachi for a sum of Rs. 500. The plaintiff was a minor at the time when this property was sold to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 14th July, 1956 by his mother. The father of the plaintiff was then alive and he died only in September, 1965. According to the plaintiff, his father was the natural guardian and during his father’s lifetime his mother could not have assumed guardianship and further there was no justification or legal necessity for the sale. He sued for declaration of his title and possession. The suit itself was filed on 12th July, 1968 within 12 years of the alienation by the mother.

2. The defendant resisted the suit and contended that the plaintiff’s mother was acting as his guardian even when the property was purchased and that the father, though he was alive, had relinquished his right of guardianship in favour of the mother. According to the defendant, the father was heavily indebted and he therefore left the property and the minor to the guardianship of the mother. The f











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