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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 837

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Kannamaml – Appellant
Versus
Chinnaponnammal – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. P. Kannan, Advocate for Appellant Mr. A. Seshan, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

.1. Defendant in O.S.No.282 of 1981, on the file of District Munsif’s Court, Ranipet is a appellant before this Court.

2. Respondent herein filed the above suit for partition claiming one half share in the plaint items. Admittedly, the properly originally belonged to late Murugan, who died in January, 1980. Plaintiff, i.e., the respondent herein, is his second wife, and the appellant is his daughter through first wife. It is admitted that the first wife is dead. It is the case of the respondent that Murugan died intestate, and herself and the defendant are the only legal heirs entitled to one half each. It is said that her husband never executed any will or settlement deed, and therefore, she is entitled to one half right in the property. Before the institution of the suit, a notice was issued, calling upon the defendant to effect a partition. It was in reply to that notice, the appellant contended that her father, i.e., the acquirer has executed a will and settlement deed. This according to the plaintiff, is not correct, and at any rate, it is further said that the will even if any, is created and is invalid.

3. In the written statement filed by the appellant, she a





























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