REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAJANI Appellant

V/S

Radha Nambidi Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR CEYLON V. A.R.ARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
KALI AMMAL AND ANOTHER V. VALLIYAMMAL AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
HAR NARAINI DEVI AND ANOTHER V. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ZAVERBHAI AMAIDAS VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
TIKA RAMJI OTHERS VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
A S KRISHNA VS. STATE OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
DEEP CHAND BRAHMAN LAL SINGH NIRANJAN SINGH HARI SHANKER SHYAM LAL RAM PRASAD JAIN TRANSPORT GENERAL TRADING CO JAIPAL SINGH VIRENDRA PAL GUPTA VISHAMBHAR DAYAL GUPTA REJENDRAPAL SIA RAM BRIJPAL SINGH PANDIT SRINIVAS MADHO RAM MOHI UDD VS. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GOWLI BUDDANNA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MYSORE [REFERRED TO]
N V NARENDRANATH VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
GURUPAD KHANDAPPA MAGDUM VS. HIRABAI KHANDAPPA MAGDUM [REFERRED TO]
M KARUNANIDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
T BARAI VS. HENRY AH HOE [REFERRED TO]
HOECHST PHARMACEUTICALS LIMITED JUMNA FLOUR AND OIL MILLS PHARMA ASSOCIATES VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR SHARMA G ABAL ALI AND K MOIDEEN K C NAIK HASANABHA K S HEGDE VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA [REFERRED TO]
R BALAKRISHNA WARRIER VS. SANTHA VARASSIAR [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF WEST BENGAL VS. KESORAM INDUSTRIES LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
RAICHURAMATHAM PRABHAKAR VS. RAWATMAL DUGAR [REFERRED TO]
MANDVI CO OP BANK LTD VS. NIMESH B THAKORE [REFERRED TO]
CHELLAMMA VS. NARAYANA FB [REFERRED TO]
N SREEDHARAN NAIR VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
BABU VS. ARUNAPRIYA [REFERRED TO]
ROHIT CHAUHAN VS. SURINDER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PRAKASH AND ORS. VS. PHULAVATI AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
SATHI DEVI VS. UMA [REFERRED TO]
K.A.ANNAMMA VS. THE SECRETARY, COCHIN [REFERRED TO]
DANAMMA@SUMAN SURPUR AND ANOTHER VS. AMAN AND OTHER [REFERRED TO]
VINEETA SHARMA VS. RAKESH SHARMA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "In a daughter, the goddess of prosperity resides always. She is established in her always. A daughter is glorious, endowed with all that is good, to be honoured at the beginning of every good work."

(2.) The defendants entered appearance and contested the case. The 1st defendant, who was alive at the time of filing of the suit, stated that he was in sound mind and the Will which was in question was executed by him. It was further contended that since the plaintiffs were married away by spending his own money, they are not entitled for partition. The 3rd defendant supported the 1st defendant. On behalf of the plaintiffs, Exts.A1 to A3 were marked and PW1 was examined and on behalf of the defendants, Exts.B1 to B19 were marked and DW1 and DW2 were examined. Based on the rival contentions, the following issues were framed by the trial court:

(3.) The trial court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, found that the Will is genuine and that it was executed by the 1st defendant and, therefore, dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the first appellate court found that the Will bequeathing the entire extent of the plaint schedule property in favour of the 3rd defendant is not valid, inasmuch as the 1st defendant had only a fractional share over the property, since by the time the Will was executed, the 3rd defendant was born into the family prior to the promulgation of the Kerala Joint Hindu Family System (Abolition) Act, 1975 [Act 30 of 1976]. Accordingly, the first appellate court passed a preliminary decree for partition dividing the plaint B schedule property item Nos.1, 3 and 4 and allotting the plaintiffs 1/12th share each in it. Insofar as item No.2 property is concerned, it was held as not partible. Aggrieved by the aforesaid finding that the plaintiffs have approached this Court in the appeal raising the following substantial questions of law:

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJANI Vs. RADHA NAMBIDI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address