REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

VASUMATHI Appellant

V/S

R.VASUDEVAN Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KAVERAMMA VS. VISHNU KUNKULLAYYA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANA SAH VS. A. SANKAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
C KRISHNA PRASAD VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BANGALORE [REFERRED TO]
B BANERJEE KAMAL LAL GHOSAL VS. ANITA PAN:ENA DUTTA [REFERRED TO]
GURUPAD KHANDAPPA MAGDUM VS. HIRABAI KHANDAPPA MAGDUM [REFERRED TO]
KALYANI VS. NARAYANAN [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. NARAYAN RAO SHAM RAO DESHMUKH [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX KANPUR VS. CHANDER SEN [REFERRED TO]
PRATAP SINGH VS. STATE OF JHAKHAND [REFERRED TO]
ANAR DEVI VS. PARMESHWARI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
H S VANKANI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
RANGAMMAL VS. KUPPUSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
ADDITIONAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX MADRAS- VS. P L KARUPPAN CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
BADSHAH VS. SAU. URMILA BADSHAH GODSE [REFERRED TO]
K. SUNDARARAJ VS. R. CHELLAMUTHU AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
UTTAM VS. SAUBHAG SINGH & ORS. [REFERRED TO]
M. KRISHNAMOORTHY VS. K. PONDEEPANKAR [REFERRED TO]
DANAMMA@SUMAN SURPUR AND ANOTHER VS. AMAN AND OTHER [REFERRED TO]
KALPANA MEHTA AND OTHERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SHYAM NARAYAN PRASAD VS. KRISHNA PRASAD AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
ARSHNOOR SINGH VS. HARPAL KAUR [REFERRED TO]
ROJER MATHEW VS. SOUTH INDIAN BANK LTD. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is preferred by the plaintiffs in O.S. No.505 of 2008. The suit is laid for partition of one item of immovable property. Broadly, it is the daughters' suit for partition against their father and brothers claiming a share in the ancestral property as coparceners. They were successful before the trial Court, and obtained a preliminary decree for partition of 1/5 share each in the suit property, whereas before the first Appellate Court in A.S.No.57 of 2021, which the defendants had preferred, the plaintiffs suffered a reversal of fortune and lost their suit. Hence, this appeal. Parties would now be referred to by their rank before the trial Court. Facts :

(2.) The quintessential facts disclosed in the pleadings are:

(3.) Both the suits were jointly tried, and evidence was recorded in O.S.505 of 2008. During trial, for the plaintiffs, second plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and she had produced Exts. A1 to A5. For the defendants, the second defendant examined himself as D.W.1 and he had produced Exts.B1 and B2, the separate settlement deeds which the first defendant had executed in favour of defendants 2 and 3.

Click here to view full judgment.

VASUMATHI Vs. R.VASUDEVAN

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address