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

1928 Supreme(Mad) 93

TIRUVENKATACHARIAR
In Re: Amirthalinga Thevan – Appellant
Versus
Unknown – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Tiruvenkatachariar, J.

1. The plaintiff in the suit has preferred this second appeal. He brought the suit for partition of certain immovable properties in which he claimed two-thirds share. Both the lower Courts have held that he is entitled only to one-third share and have given him a decree for partition to the extent of that share. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal in respect of the one-third share disallowed. The material facts of the case as found by both the Courts are as follows:

The suit properties in which the plain-till claims two-thirds share belonged to an undivided Hindu family consisting of one Mari Ambalagaran and his two sons. Kuppuswami, the elder son (by his first wife) was a major, Paraman the other son (by his second wife) was a minor. The plaintiffs claim is based on the sale-deed Ex. A, dated 13th May 1914, purporting to be executed in his favour by Mari Ambalagaran and Kuppuswami, the former executing the sale-deed not only on his own behalf, but also on behalf of his minor son Paraman. Kuppuswami, however, repudiated the sale-deed and it was not registered so far as he was concerned and the plaintiffs suit to enforce registration of the do























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