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

2014 Supreme(Online)(KER) 29887

HIGH COURT OF KERALA
P.BHAVADASAN, J
A SATHYANARAYANAN – Appellant
Versus
A MADHAVAN – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Lakshmi Nethiyaramma had six sons and a daughter. The plaintiff, Sankarankutty Achan was one of them. The defendant is the daughter of another son of Lakshmi Nethiyaramma, late Pankajakshan Pillai.

2. The plaint schedule property admittedly belonged to late Lakshmi Nethiyaramma. She put up the house in the property and was residing therein. There is not much dispute regarding the fact that till 1985 the defendant was staying with Lakshmi Nethiyaramma and was looking after her. Lakshmi Nethiyaramma on 21.5.1979 executed Ext.B2 Will, genuineness of which is not in dispute. The allegation is that in 1983 the testator cancelled Ext.B2 Will and executed Ext.A1 Will. While under Ext.B2 Will the sole beneficiary was the defendant, under Ext.A1 Will it was the plaintiff and four others. Under Ext.A1 Will the defendant was totally excluded. Even after the death of Lakshmi Nethiyaramma according to the defendant, she continued to reside in the property as a matter of right. The plaintiff on the other hand would say that she was permitted to continue the residence in the house. According to the original plaintiff, he was employed outside and was not in a position to reside in the hous

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