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

1996 Supreme(MP) 845

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
Madhav Krishan – Appellant
Versus
Chandrabhaga – Respondent


Advocates:
A.K. Chitale and Niraj Sharma for appellants,
Sushil Kumar Jain for respondents.

ORDER

G.B. PATTANAIK, J. -- 1. Leave granted.

2. This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment and order dated 3.7.1995 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior in SA No. 182 of 1989.

3. The admitted facts are that Mansaram had two sons by name, Babulal and Parasram. The appellants are the descendants through Babulal and the respondents are descendants through Parasaram. In an earlier Suit No. 384-A of 1964, the respondents pleaded in their plaint that Mansaram, Babulal and Paras ram were members of the joint family and, therefore, each of them was entitled to 1/3rd share in the suit property. They sought for partition and a decree for partition by metes and bounds to the extent of their 1/3rd share in the said house. It was held that Mansaram was the exclusive owner of the property and that it was not a joint family property and that the respondents have no right to partition of the said property. The decree has become final, Mansaram, during his lifetime, had executed a registered will on 28.3.1964 bequeathing the properties to the appellants and Mansaram died on 12.12.1968. The appellants filed the suit on 14.11.1977 for declaration of title and for posse





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