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

1967 Supreme(Kar) 144

K.R.GOPIVALLABHA IYENGAR, B.M.KALAGATE
GOVINDA – Appellant
Versus
CHIMABAI – Respondent


Kalagate, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the plaintiff against the decree dated 11th July 1961, made by the Civil judge, Senior Division Belgaum, dismissing his suit to recover the suit schedule properties as the adopted son of one Venkatesh.

( 2 ) BY his plaint dated 25th September 1958, he alleged that one Krishnaji was a Watandar kulkarni of Holihosur in Bailhongal Taluk. He had two sons--Venkatesh and Shama Rao--and a daughter by name Mathurabai, who is defendant 3 in the suit. Shama Rao died on 29th september 1941 without a male issue, Chimmabai defendant 1--is his wife, and alakananda--defendant 2--is his daughter. Venkatesh was the sole surviving coparcener; plaintiff is related to Venkatesh, being the grandson of Ranga Rao, his maternal uncle. Venkatesh in order to continue his line and to obtain salvation, adopted plaintiff with the ceremonies on the 16th december 1941 and, on the same day, executed a registered deed of adoption. A photograph of the adoption ceremony was also taken. He thus became the adopted son of Venkatesh. Venkatesh died on 3rd December 1957, and after his death, he (plaintiff) alone is the sole surviving coparcener and therefore he is entitled to cla









































































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