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

1954 Supreme(SC) 54

B.K.MUKHERJEE, GHULAM HASAN, T.L.VENKATARAMA AYYAR
Srinivas Krishnarao Kango – Appellant
Versus
Narayan Devji Kango – Respondent


Advocates:
J.B.DADACHAN, NAUNIT LAL, RATNAPAKHI ANANT GOVIND, S.B.JATHAR

Judgment

VENKATARAMA AYYAR, J.:

This appeal arise out of a suit for partition instituted by the appellant in the court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Bijapur. The relationship of the parties will appear from the following genealogical table :

Siddopant and Krishnarao were members of joint undivided family. Krishnarao died in 1897 leaving behind a widow, Rukminibai, who is the sixth defendant in the suit, Siddopant died in 1899 leaving surviving his son, Gundo who died in 1901 leaving behind a widow, Lakshmibai, who is the fifth defendant. On 16-12-1901 Lakshmibai adopted Devji, who died on 6-5-1935 leaving three sons, defendants 1 to 3, and a widow, Akkubai, the fourth defendant. On 26-4-1944 Rukminibai adopted the plaintiff, and on 29-6-1944 he instituted the present suit for partition claiming half share in the family properties.

2. Siddopant and Krishnarao represented one branch of a Kulkarni family and were entitled for their share of the Watan lands, to the whole of S. No. 138 and a half share in S. Nos. 133 and 136 in the village of Ukamnal and a half share in S. Nos. 163, 164 and 168 in the village of Katakanhalli. The other branch was represented by Swamirao, who was ent






























































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the cases explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law based solely on the provided list. There are references to cases being relied upon or followed, but no clear indication of judicial disapproval, overruling, or reversal. Therefore, no case from this list can definitively be identified as bad law based on the information available.

Several references, such as in entries like Mayilasalam VS Jayalkshmi @ Chinnammal - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 3666, Kaveri VS Anandayee - 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 3306, Tiruvannamalai Karuneekar Sangam, S/o. S. Arumugham Pillai VS Saradambal Ammal (Died) - 2023 0 Supreme(Mad) 2857, RM. Meenal VS RM. Sethu - 2022 0 Supreme(Mad) 1049, S. Thiagarajan VS Chitkala Govindaswamy - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 3663, C. Ponnusamy VS Dhanalakshmi - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 3108, and others, indicate that subsequent decisions or courts have relied on or cited the case of Srinivas Krishnarao Kango v. Narayan Devji (AIR 1954 SC 379). This suggests consistent judicial acceptance and reliance on the case's principles.

Entries such as Heera Lal VS Board of Revenue - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 116, Ganesh Singh VS Hari Singh - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 925, Appasaheb Peerappa Chamdgade VS Devendra Peerappa Chamdgade - 2006 0 Supreme(Raj) 2454, D. S. Lakshmaiah VS L. Balasubramanyam - 2003 0 Supreme(Raj) 738, Heera Lal VS Board of Revenue - 2001 0 Supreme(Raj) 116, and Ganesh Singh VS Hari Singh - 2002 0 Supreme(Raj) 925 explicitly mention that the case has been followed or approved by later courts or in subsequent judgments.

The references to the case in multiple judgments, including those in different High Courts and Supreme Court decisions (e.g., Pandurangan VS Kandasamy - 2001 0 Supreme(Mad) 756, Dorairaj VS Doraisamy & Others - 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 3109, Sangodai Ammal & Others VS Arumugha Kone & Others - 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 5755, K. V. Ramasamy & Others VS K. V. Rahgavan & Others - 2009 0 Supreme(Mad) 2913, Sadasivam VS Sankar - 2017 0 Supreme(Mad) 896, and others), reinforce that the case has been treated as good law and a binding or persuasive precedent.

Several entries mention the case in passing or as part of a broader discussion without explicit commentary on its current validity or treatment, e.g., Gurunath VS Kamalabal - 1954 0 Supreme(SC) 176, Abdul Aziz Chaudhury VS Barindra Kumar Das - 1956 0 Supreme(Gau) 61, DASS BANK LTD. VS KALI KUMARI DEBI - 1958 0 Supreme(Cal) 92, Commissioner of Wealth Tax, A. P. , Hyderabad VS N. V. Narendranath, Masulipatnam - 1964 0 Supreme(AP) 245, Nandappa Paramanna VS Shidgouda Ningappa - 1964 0 Supreme(Kar) 126, B. Nadamuni Chetty VS P. Krishna Reddy - 2010 0 Supreme(AP) 1040, Shivanna VS Rangappa  - 2011 0 Supreme(Kar) 785, and others. These references do not clarify whether the case has been overruled, criticized, or reaffirmed, making the treatment ambiguous.

Some entries, such as Banwari Lal VS Mst. Pathsi - 1971 0 Supreme(Raj) 20 and Moti Lal VS Sardar Mal - 1975 0 Supreme(Raj) 121, mention the case as part of reasoning or in the context of legal principles but do not specify whether the case's authority has been upheld or questioned subsequently.

The numerous references to the case in various contexts (e.g., discussions of joint family law, proof, presumption, relation back, etc.) without explicit statements of disapproval or overruling create uncertainty about its current standing.

There are no indications in the list that the case has been explicitly overruled or criticized, but the lack of recent reaffirmation or explicit treatment leaves some ambiguity.

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