REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

LEELA AMMA Appellant

V/S

ARAVINDAKSHA MENON Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CHAKKARA KANNAN V. KUNHI POKKAR [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNAN V. RAMAN [REFERRED TO]
BHARGAVI V. CHAKKI [REFERRED TO]
SOOPIADATH AHMAD V. MANHA MAMMAD [REFERRED TO]
KEDAR LAL SEAL VS. BAN LAL SEAL [REFERRED TO]
KAVALAPPARA KOTTARATHIL KOCHUNI MOOPIL NAYAR RAVUNNIARATH UNNIMALU AMMA DEVAKI AMMA RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON RAVUNNIARATH RAJAN MENON K C GOPALAN UNNI THATHUNNI NAIR MANNARGHAT MOOPIL NAIR VS. STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATES OF MADRAS AND KERALA:STATE OF MADRAS:STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
MALLESAPPA BANDEPPA DESAI VS. DESAI MALLAPPA ALIAS MALLESAPPA [REFERRED TO]
ACHUTHAN NAIR VS. CHINNAMMU AMMA [REFERRED TO]
BHAGWATI PRASAD VS. CHANDRAMAUL [REFERRED TO]
MUDI GOWDA GOWDAPPA SANKH VS. RAM CHANDRA RAVAGOWUA SANKH [REFERRED TO]
M K BALAKRISHNAN MENON VS. ASSISTANT CONTROLLER OF ESTATE DUTY GUM INCOME TAX OFFICER ERNAKULAM [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL GANERIWAL VS. BHURI BAI [REFERRED TO]
RAM SARUP GUPTA VS. BISHUN NARAIN INTER COLLEGE [REFERRED TO]
RAJBIR KAUR VS. S CHOKESIRI AND CO [REFERRED TO]
PAPPU VS. SEKHARAN [REFERRED TO]
PARAMESWARAN PILLAI VS. RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
PATHUMMA AMINA BEEVI VS. VASU VASUDEVAN [REFERRED TO]
KARTHYAYINI AMMA VS. PARUKUTTY AMMA [REFERRED TO]
MARY VS. BHASURA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
THAZHATH VALAPPIL PRASANTH VS. KALLIANI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS 38, 39 and 47 in OS No. 1524 of 1995 on the file of the Subordinate Judges Court, Thrissurare the appellants in this appeal filed under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 CPC. Pending this appeal, the 2nd appellant (Visalakshi Amma) died and her legal representatives already on the party array were recorded as such. The 3rd appellant (Kunhilakshmi Amma) also died and her legal representatives were impleaded as additional appellants 4 to 7,

(2.) THE aforementioned suit was one for partition and separate possession of the plaintiffs' 5/40 shares over 10 items of immovable properties described in the plaint B schedule.

(3.) THE 22nd defendant died pending suit and defendants 48 to 52 were impleaded as her legal representatives. Defendants 1, 23 to 37, 42 to 46 and 48 to 52 remained ex parte. Defendants 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 to 20 filed written statements supporting the suit claim and demanded their share over the plaint B schedule properties. THE DEFENCE

Click here to view full judgment.

LEELA AMMA Vs. ARAVINDAKSHA MENON

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address