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

1938 Supreme(Mad) 387

VENKATARAMANA RAO
Sarvabhotla Thotapalle Chendikamba – Appellant
Versus
Kanala Indrakanti Viswanathamayya – Respondent


ORDER

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. This second appeal arises out of a suit for a declaration that the sale-deed, Ex. XI dated 25th March, 1926, executed by the second defendant as the agent of his daughter the first defendant, the widow of one Krishnayya deceased, in favour of the third defendant is not binding on the plaintiff and the fourth defendant after the lifetime of the first defendant. The plaintiff and the fourth defendant claim to be the next reversioners to the estate of the said Krishnayya on the death of the first defendant and their case is that the sale was not for a purpose binding on the estate. The main defence is that the husband of the first defendant left a will in and by which he bequeathed all his property absolutely to the first defendant. It was also pleaded that the plaintiff and the fourth defendant are not the next reversioners and that the suit is not maintainable, and in any event, the sale was supported by necessity. Both the Courts concurrently found against the contentions of the defendants on all their pleas and gave a decree in favour of the plaintiff as prayed for. The first defendant has preferred this appeal.

2. Mr. Govindarajachari on her behalf has



















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