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

K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN,DIPAK MISRA
MATHAI SAMUEL – Appellant
Versus
EAPEN EAPEN (DEAD) BY LRS. . – Respondent


Advocates:
T. G. NARAYANAN NAIRR. SATHISH

Page 1

JUDGMENT

1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL

APPEAL

NO.

8197

OF

2012

[Arising out of SLP (Civil) NO.13385 OF 2009]

Mathai Samuel & Ors.

.. Appellant(s)

Versus

Eapen Eapen (dead) by Lrs. & Ors.

.. Respondent(s)

J U D G M

E N T

K.

S.

Radhakrishnan,

J.

1.

Leave granted.

2.

We are, in this appeal, called upon to determine the question

whether the recitals in exhibit A1 concerning item No.1 of schedule

No. 8 therein (item No. 1 of the plaint schedule) discloses a

Page 2

JUDGMENT

2

testamentary disposition or a settlement creating vested rights in

favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 1 to 3 though possession

and enjoyment stood deferred until the death of the executants.

3.

O.S. No. 169 of 1990 was instituted before the court of

Subordinate Judge, Thiruvalla by the original plaintiffs and one

Eapen for partition and separate possession of various items of

properties, of which, we are in this appeal concerned only with item

No. 1 of the plaint schedule. The trial court passed a preliminary

decree giving various directions, however with regard to

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