R.K.DESHPANDE
Suman Vishnu Pathak – Appellant
Versus
Usha w/o Prabhakarrao Koparkar – Respondent
R. K. Deshpande, J.— The respondent Smt. Usha Koparkar is the original plaintiff and the granddaughter of Late Shri Vishnu Pathak, who filed Regular Civil Suit No. 80 of 1981 claiming that the suit property, which stood in the name of Vishnu Pathak, was acquired by nucleus of joint family funds and hence she was entitled to share in it. She claimed partition and separate possession of 1/36th share in the suit property, i.e. Plot No.17 at Yavatmal. The appellant Nos. l and 2 are the original defendant Nos. 17 and 19, who claimed to be the owners of the suit property on the basis of the codicil executed by Vishnu Pathak on 10.5.1973 bequeathing the suit property in their favour. The appellant Nos.3 to 7 are the original defendant Nos.26 to 30, who claimed to have purchased the suit property from the appellant Nos. 1 and 2.
2. The two sons of Kashinath Pathak, viz. Satish and Vinod, were joined as the defendant Nos. l and 2; Smt. Nirmalabai w/o Kashinath Pathak was joined as the defendant No.3; the another daughter of Kashinath Pathak, viz. Smt. Megha Gadgil, was joined as the defendant No.4; Smt. Premlabai w/o Yashwant Vishnu Pathak, was joined as the defendant No.5; and her
Appalaswami v. Suryanarayanamurti
Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji Kango & Ors.
Mangal Singh v. Harkesh and Anr.
Bhagwati Prasad Sah and Ors. v. Dulhin Rameshwari Kuer and Anr.
D.S. Lakshmaiah and Anr. v. L. Balasubramanyam and Anr.
Mallesappa Bandeppa Desai and Anr. v. Desai Mallappa alias Mallesappa and Anr.
Mst. Rukhmabai v. Lala Laxminarayan and Ors.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.