REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

CHERUKURU MUTHAYYA Appellant

V/S

GADDE GOPALAKRISHNAYYA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

ARUNACHALAM CHETTIAR V. NARAYANA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
APPANNA V. SRI RAMAMURTHY [REFERRED TO]
PACHAI AMMAL V. ANGUSWAMI GRAMMANI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A. P. V. LAKSHMINARASIMHA RAJU [REFERRED TO]
VENKAIAH V. SUBBARAMA SASTRY. [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADRAS V. KARUPPIAH AMBALAM [REFERRED TO]
SANJEEVI NAICKER V. SHANMUGA UDAYAR [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESWARA RAO V. KAMALA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
RAO GOPAL RAO V. OFFICIAL RECEIVER [REFERRED TO]
MANIKYAMMA V. STATE OF A. P. [REFERRED TO]
RANA SHEO AMBAR SINGH VS. ALLAHABAD BANK LTD [REFERRED TO]
SHIVASHANKAR PRASAD SHAH VS. BAIKUNTH NATH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHIGURUPATI VENKATASUBBIAH VS. RAVI PUNNAYYA [REFERRED TO]
BHAVARAJU VENKATA SUBBA RAO VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
VECHALAPU RAMULU DIED VS. VECHALAPU APPALANAIDU [REFERRED TO]
PENUMATCHA NEELAKANTESWARAJU VS. JADDU MANGAMMA [REFERRED TO]
ADAKALATHAMMAL VS. CHINNAYYAN PANIPUNDAR [REFERRED TO]
KULANDAISWAMI MADURAI VS. MURUGAYYA MADURAR [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is from the judgment of the principal District Munsif orginally filed with the Subordinate Judge, Vijayawada but transferred to the High Court to be heard along with W.P. No. 2057 of 1965.

(2.) One Guruvaiah had five sons and four daughters . The 2nd plaintiff is the eldest daughter. One of his sons Narasaiah died issuless. By 1942 there were four shareholders representing the branches of four sons. The contention was that the 1st plaintiffs father was illatom son-in-law of Guruvaiah. As such he was also given one share in the partition that took place in 1942. The 2nd plaintiff , who had managed the estate after the death of Guruvaiah and who had lost her husband when she was just a child, was also given half share in the partition.

(3.) In the partition , two suit items fell to the share of the 2nd plaintiff . She executed a registered settlement deed on 19-9-1950 in respect of the first item and executed a gift deed in regard to Item 2 on 20-3-1952 in favour of the 1st plaintiff and put him in possession. The 2nd plainitiff had reserved life estate in the first item. She died during the pendency of the suit. On a contention that the defendants are trying to interfere with the possession of the plaintiffs the suit for injunction was laid.

Click here to view full judgment.

CHERUKURU MUTHAYYA Vs. GADDE GOPALAKRISHNAYYA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address