REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

TADEPALLI RAM RATHNAM Appellant

V/S

KANTHETI VARADARAJULU Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DOE V. NEPAN [REFERRED TO]
REX V. INJABITANTS OF HARBORNE [REFERRED TO]
UNDERWOOD V. WING [REFERRED TO]
NEPEAN V. DOE [REFERRED TO]
WING V. ANGRAVE [REFERRED TO]
IN RE,GREENS SETTLEMENT [REFERRED TO]
RAMANNA V. APPAYYA [REFERRED TO]
THOMPSON V. MILK MARKETING BOARD [REFERRED TO]
REG V. LUMLEY [REFERRED TO]
SUBURAMUPILLAI V. RAMAYI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
GILMORE V. BAKER-CARR [REFERRED TO]
YOUNG V. BRISTOL AEROPLANE CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
IN RE,BENHAMS TRUSTS [REFERRED TO]
IN RE,TABRISKY [REFERRED TO]
VENKATESWARLU V. BAPAYYA [REFERRED TO]
LAL CHAND V. RAMPUR GIR [REFERRED TO]
GEARY V. LEE [REFERRED TO]
IN RE,PHENES TRUSTS [REFERRED TO]
W. AND JB EASTWOOD LTD. V. HERROD [REFERRED TO]
ADUSUMILLI VENKATA SUBBA RAO VS. GULLAPALL SUBBA RAO [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAREPPA VS. SHIVARUDRAPPA [REFERRED TO]
PARIKHIT MUDULI VS. CHAMPA DEI [REFERRED TO]
GNANAMUTHU UDAYAR VS. ANTHONI [REFERRED TO]
NARAYANA PILLAI VS. VELAYUTHAN PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
HUSEINNY J BHAGAT VS. LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
NARBADA VS. RAM DAYAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises a short but important question and is directed against the judgment of the District Judge, Machilipatnam given on 27/03/1967.

(2.) The short facts relevant for the purpose of this appeal are that the plaintiff and defendants 4 to 7 are the daughters of one K. Venkatakrishnaiah, a resident of Vijayawada. Defendants 1 to 3 are his sons and the 8th defendant is his wife. Venkatakrishnaiah was the owner of the immovable property described in the plaint schedule which was his self acquired property. Venkatakrishnaiah was seen for the last time in the last week of December, 1955. From then he was not heard of by those who ought to know about him. The plaintiff claimed 1/9th share in the plaint schedule property on the ground that Venkatakrishnaiah would be presumed to have died either at the end of seven years form the date when he was last seen as he was not heard of for over seven years since then or in any case on the date of the suit, and consequently she is entitled to that share under the Hindu Succession Act (XXX of 1956).

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that no such presumption can be made and that the plaintiff is not entitled to any share in the property.

Click here to view full judgment.

TADEPALLI RAM RATHNAM Vs. KANTHETI VARADARAJULU

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address