REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

G.K.PALANI GOUNDER, MANI Appellant

V/S

KANAKAMBAL (DIED) LRS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

NAGARAJAN AND 3 OTHERS VS. ANNAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
L.A.K.SHANMUGHASUNDARAM CHETTIAR AND ANOTHER VS. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL,SANKARANKOIL AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
PENTAKOTA SATYANARAYANA AND OTHERS V. PENTAKOTA SEETHARATNAM [REFERRED TO]
JANAKI DEVI VS. R.VASANTHI AND 6 OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
J.MATHEW (DIED) 2. J.DAMIEN AND 3 OTHERS VS. LEELA JOSEPH [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV KAUR AND OTHERS VS. KAKI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
VENNAM RAMIAH VS. KUSRU KOTAMMA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
BAGESWARI CHARAN SINGH VS. JAGARNATH KUARI AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
KOCHU GOVINDAN KAIMAL VS. THEKKET LAKSHMI AMMA [REFERRED TO]
RANI PURNIMA DEBI VS. KUMAR KHAGENDRA NARAYAN DEB [REFERRED TO]
INDU BALA BOSE VS. MANINDRA CHANDRA BOSE [REFERRED TO]
SATYA PAL GOPAL DAS VS. PANCHU BALA DASI [REFERRED TO]
MEENAKSHIAMMAL DEAD VS. CHANDRASEKARAN [REFERRED TO]
DAULAT RAM VS. SODHA [REFERRED TO]
SRIDEVI VS. JAYARAJA SHETTY [REFERRED TO]
SAVITHRI VS. KARTHYAYANI AMMA [REFERRED TO]
KUPPUSWAMI RAJA VS. PERUMAL RAJA [REFERRED TO]
ASBER REUBEN SAMSON VS. EILLAH SOLOMON [REFERRED TO]
KANNAPPAN VS. PARGUNAN [REFERRED TO]
M ANANDAN VS. A DAKSHINAMOORTHY [REFERRED TO]
SRIBHAGWAN SINGH VS. RAMBASI KUER [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND YADAV VS. DEOKI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
SAJJAD HUSAIN VS. QURBAN ALI BEG [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is focussed as against the judgment and decree dated 24. 01. 1994 passed in O. S. No. 193 of 1998 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Gobichettipalayam, which is a suit for partition. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) SUCCINCTLY and precisely, pithily and tersely, the case of the plaintiff as stood exposited from the plaint could be portrayed thus:

(3.) REMONSTRATING and gainsaying, D4 during her life time filed the written statement with the averments, the pith and marrow of them would run thus: d4 was not aware of the fact as to whom the item No. 1 actually belonged; but, her husband proclaimed that he had right over it to execute the Will. Item No. 2 of the suit properties was purchased by D4 from out of her own funds and it did not belong to her husband. Since D4 happened to be the owner of the second item of the suit properties, she executed Ex. A3 Will dated 02. 03. 1977 along with her husband G. K. Kalianna Gounder. Subsequently, the testators got highly dissatisfied with his daughters and wanted to cancel his earlier Will Ex. A3 and intended to bequeath the suit properties to his sons. The said Will Ex. A3 was not intended to be acted upon. D3 was not in occupation of the item No. 2 of the suit properties. Even though D4 sustained fracture, nonetheless, she was not suffering from mental weakness. Ex. B8 was executed by her voluntarily while she was in a sound disposing state of mind and that she cancelled the earlier Will, Ex. A3. The mortgage deed dated 08. 08. 1988 was executed by her in favour of D7 for valid consideration. Accordingly, she prayed for the dismissal of the suit.

Click here to view full judgment.

G K PALANI GOUNDER ALIAS MANI Vs. KANAKAMBAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address