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

1919 Supreme(Mad) 48

A.RAHIM
Sri Gajapati Narasimha Deo Garu – Appellant
Versus
Sri Gajapati Krishnachendra Deo – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Abdur Rahim, J.

1. The suit of the appellants has been dismissed on the ground of limitation, none of the other issues raised in the case having been tried at all. I may say at the outset that though in the result, I agree in the conclusion of the learned District Judge, I do not think that it was a prudent course on his part to, have confined himself to the issue of limitation.

2. The suit was to enforce partition of a partible Zamindari in the district of Ganjam. The two plaintiffs claim to be the legitimate sons of the last proprietor Vasudeva Deo, and their case is that they are entitled to one-third share each in the estate while the 1st defendant, the son of Vasudeva Deo by another wife, is entitled to the remaining one-third. The plaintiffs further alleged that Vasudeva Deo left a will under which the plaintiffs were entitled to one-fourth share, their claim therefore is in the alternative to one-fourth share of the estate in case they fail to prove that they are the legitimate sons of Vasudeva Deo. Vasudeva Deo died in January 1898 and the Court of Wards took charge of the estate and managed it till the 1st defendant attained majority sometime in 1916 and then made ov















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