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

1962 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 3

MADRAS HIGH COURT
Viswanatha Sastri, J
Alienee – Appellant
Versus
Roya Kuppa Chetti – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: -
For the Respondents: -

Table of Content
1. context of joint family and partition demand (Para 1)
2. jurisdiction on minor's division claims (Para 2 , 3)
3. guardian's role in minor's partition rights (Para 4 , 5 , 6)
4. court's supervisory role in minor's interests (Para 7 , 8)

1. Roya Kuppa Chetti, the first defendant to the suit out of which this second appeal arises, and Krishnaswami Chetti (the second defendant), his grandson born of his deceased son, were members of a Joint Hindu family. Krishnaswami Chetti, still a minor, is under the care and protection of his mother Sundarammal, who has been impleaded as the 3rd defendant in the suit. Both of them are living in the house, which is the subject matter of this litigation. Roya Kuppa Chetti however did not take to them kindly; it has been found that his attitude towards his grandson was hostile. Being thus obliged by circumstances, the mother of the minor acting on his behalf, issued a notice on 22/12/1953, to his grandfather unequivocally expressing an intention to separate from the family and demanding partition. There was no response to the demand. Instead Roya Kuppa Chetti sold on 01/02/1954 the suit property to the plaintiff purporting to do so on be
























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