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

1946 Supreme(Mad) 91

YAHYA ALI
Murikipudi Ankamma – Appellant
Versus
Tummalacheruvu Narasayya – Respondent


Advocates:
N. Subramaniam and D. V. Reddi Pantulu for Appellant.
Ch. Raghava Rao and G. C.V. Subba Rao for Respondents.

Judgment

The first defendant in O. S. No. 290 of 1942, District Munsiff’s Court, Gurzala, is the appellant in this appeal. K. Papayya who owned certain properties in Piduguralla and another village executed a deed of gift Ex. D-3 on 10th June, 1931, in favour of the 5th defendant, T. Hanumayya. It would appear that Papayya had a son who died and subsequently there was a partition between Papayya and his grandson and thereafter there was nobody to take care of him. He therefore took the 5th defendant Hanumayya to his house for the purpose of looking after him and assisting him in the management of the property. It is for this reason that the gift was made in favour of the 5th defendant who was closely related to the donor. It is the appellant’s case that Hanumayya after a short stay with Papayya left Piduguralla and went back to his own native place Mallavolu and ceased to bestow any attention on Papayya or render him any assistance as expected. For this reason, it is alleged, Papayya revoked the gift deed Ex. D-3 by means of the deed of revocation Ex. D-4 dated 26th September, 1933. The differences between them are said to have been ultimately composed by mediators in 1934 under an

















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