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

1937 Supreme(Mad) 116

VENKATASUBBA RAO
Swaminatha Odayar – Appellant
Versus
S. Gopalaswami Odayar and 17 Ors. – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkatasubba Rao, J.

1. An objection which ought to have been taken in limine, has been raised at the closing stage of a long argument, to the effect that the appeal, is incompetent on account of certain parties not having been added as respdndents. We do not at present propose to set out the history of this long-drawn litigation, for, it is sufficient to state just a few facts in order to deal with the contention raised. This was a partition suit commenced nearly two decades ago and the members of the family to which the action relates, owned considerable properties when it started, but they have since been reduced, with the exception of the sixth defendant, to such straits, that some are represented by the assignees in insolvency, and the others, by the trustees under a composition deed. The only solvent member now of the family is the sixth defendant and he is the appellant before us. There are several memoranda of objections in the nature of cross-appeals which have been filed. The principal contesting respondent is the third defendant represented by the Receiver in insolvency and the preliminary objection referred to above has been raised by his counsel, Mr. Venkatarama
















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