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

1928 Supreme(Nagpur) 44

CHARLES FINDLAY, PRIDEAUX
MUKUNDRAO AND TWO OTHERS – Appellant
Versus
RAGHUNATHRAO – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Hari Singh Gour, Shridhar Rao Gokhale, Advocates

JUDGMENT

1. The Plaintiff is the minor son of one Yeshwantrao deceased, the brother of the first Defendant Makundrao. Defendants 2 and 3 are sons of Makundrao. It is alleged in the plaint that the family are ( sic ) still joint and before his death Yeshwantrao was managing the family property. Now the 1st Defendant is not managing the affairs of the family properly. He is appropriating to himself the entire income and allowing the family debts to accumulate, recklessly incurring fresh liabilities; and the Plaintiff fears that it will be impossible for him to pay his share of the debt when he comes of age in some seven years' time. And for all these reasons he claims a partition of the family estate, he to be given his one half share. The prayer clause of the plaint runs as follows:

The Plaintiff prays for the following reliefs:

(a) That a decree for partitioning the whole joint estate as shown in schedules A, B, C. and D. be passed and half the share of the whole estate be allotted to the Plaintiff. If during the proceedings of the suit the Plaintiff finds any property which is not known to him at present, that also should be included in the partition.

(b) If for any reasons the Court









































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