BAY BERRY APARTMENTS PVT LTD Vs. SHOBHA
LAWS(SC)-2006-10-71
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: KARNATAKA)
Decided on
October 19,2006
BAY BERRY APARTMENTS PVT. LTD.
Appellant
VERSUS
SHOBHA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
ANGURBALA MULLICK V. DEBABRATA MULLICK [REFERRED TO]VITHALBHAI (P) LTD. V. UNION BANK OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
DAYA SINGH DEAD VS. DHAN KAUR [REFERRED TO]
N KRISHNAMMAL VS. R EKAMBARAM [REFERRED TO]
MAHESH CHAND SHARMA VS. RAJ KUMARI SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
MADHUKAR VISHWANATH VS. MADHAO [REFERRED TO]
PREM SINGH VS. BIRBAL [REFERRED TO]
LALA DUNI CHAND VS. MT ANAR KALI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NATIONAL INSURANCE CO LTD VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT NO 8, ETAWAH [LAWS(ALL)-2013-1-434] [REFERRED TO]PREM DEVI VS. JAGDISH KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-428] [REFERRED TO]
SANIA @ SANATAN MOHANTY VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2015-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
TINGZADIM VS. KUBER MOIRANGTHEMCHA [LAWS(MANIP)-2018-6-4] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL BASIT VS. ABDUL KADIR CHOUDHARY [LAWS(SC)-2014-9-109] [REFERRED TO]
P.RUKMINI VS. V.BALASUBRAMANIAM [LAWS(MAD)-2020-3-147] [REFERRED TO]
LATA CHAUHAN VS. L S BISHT [LAWS(DLH)-2010-7-423] [REFERRED TO]
MANRAKHAN S/O ITWARI SAHU AND ORS VS. GOPAL S/O GANESH PADHYE [LAWS(BOM)-2008-8-398] [RELIED ON]
TANAY AWASTHY VS. NARESH TIWARI AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-2012-5-265] [REFERRED]
NARESH KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-2018-7-88] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF TELANGANA VS. HABIB ABDULLAH JEELANI & ORS. [LAWS(SC)-2017-1-147] [REFERRED TO]
K.P.MUHAMMED, S/O. MOIDEEN KOYA VS. M.ABDURAHIMAN, S/O. KUTTIYAMU [LAWS(KER)-2013-3-137] [REFERRED TO]
HEMLATA VS. VIPIN KUMAR [LAWS(DLH)-2012-7-430] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH VS. MANOJ JATAV [LAWS(MPH)-2018-3-557] [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH BAPURAO SABALE VS. SHALINIBAI NAGAPPA SABALE [LAWS(SC)-2009-3-106] [REFERRED TO]
GOWRI SHANKER GUPTA VS. STATE OF A.P. [LAWS(APH)-2012-12-32] [REFERRED TO]
K VIJAYA VS. ASHOK KUMAR AGARWAL [LAWS(APH)-2011-9-140] [REFERRED TO]
CHETAN WALIA AND ORS. VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-11-103] [REFERRED TO]
JAGROOP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-9-133] [REFERRED TO]
SREELEKHA ABHILASH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2024-11-165] [REFERRED TO]
RAJENDRA NATH GUPTA VS. RAVINDRA NATH GUPTA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-324] [REFERRED TO]
KULDEEP VS. STATE OF NCT OF DELHI [LAWS(DLH)-2024-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
SHASHI SHEKHAR @ NEERAJ VS. STATE OF THE NCT OF DELHI AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-11-60] [REFERRED TO]
RAJEEV SAUMITRA VS. NEETU SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(DLH)-2016-1-242] [REFERRED TO]
SODHA TAGAJI A. VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2016-10-12] [REFERRED TO]
RANJIT SINGH VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(SC)-2013-9-85] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV KUMAR SHARMA VS. SANTOSH KUMARI [LAWS(SC)-2007-9-68] [REFERRED TO]
RASHMI REKHA THATOI VS. STATE OF ORISSA [LAWS(SC)-2012-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
RAJESH KUMAR SOOD VS. PARVEJ NOWROJEE AND OTHERS [LAWS(HPH)-2016-8-139] [REFERRED TO]
ELECTION COMMISSION OF INDIA VS. MUKHTAR ANSARI & ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-2-88] [REFERRED TO]
CHATTAR SINGH VS. SUBHASH [LAWS(DLH)-2011-1-329] [REFERRED TO]
RAMESH KUMAR VS. SURAT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2010-3-100] [REFERRED TO]
RANI SHARMA VS. SHASHANK TIWARI AND ORS [LAWS(DLH)-2019-1-393] [REFERRED TO]
MAGANBHAI BALUBHAI VS. LILAVATIBEN NAGINBHAI D/O BALUBHAI BHANABHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2018-9-309] [REFERRED TO]
P DEVENDIRAN VS. P RAJENDRAN [LAWS(MAD)-2011-9-22] [REFERRED TO]
BHS INDUSTRIES VS. EXPORT CREDIT GUARANTEE CORP [LAWS(SC)-2015-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
S. B. SINHA, J. -
(1.)V. Papaiah Naidu owned a large number of movable and immovable properties. He had 5 sons, viz, V. Perumala Swamy Naidu, V. Sudarshanam Naidu, V. Balakrishna Naidu, V. Deena Dayalu Naidu, V. Ramakrishna Naidu and 4 daughters, viz., Rukminiyamma, Pushpamma, Hamsaveniyamma and Bhagyalakshmiyamma. He executed a Will on 14.7.1932. The said Will was a registered one. A portion of the properties was bequeathed in favour of defendant No. 1. He was then a minor. The properties bequeathed in his favour were described in Schedule E of the Will. In terms of the said Will, the sons of the testator got life interest. Only, after his death his heirs, legal representatives could inherit the same. On 3.12.1975 the original defendant No.1 and his son executed a deed of sale in favour of defendant No. 2, M. Krishna Reddy. On or about 30th January, 1982, defendant No. 2 disposed of the said property in favour of defendant No. 3. Plaintiffs-Respondents who are the daughters of original defendant No. 1 filed a suit on 30.7.1982 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore on 30th July, 1982 inter alia praying for the following reliefs :
"(a) declaring that the Plaintiffs are also lawful heirs entitled to the bequests under the Will dated 14.7.1932 executed by their grand-father as lineal heirs of the First Defendant;
(b) and consequently restrain by an order of permanent injunction the defendants, their agents, servants from demolishing, altering, constructing or reconstructing the suit schedule property;
(c) grant cost of the suit; and"
(2.)The plaintiffs, however, did not implead their brother as a party.
(3.)The bungalow which was the subject-matter of the suit was demolished by Appellants herein whereupon the plaint was amended praying for a decree of mandatory injunction for restoration of the said property.
"(a) declaring that the Plaintiffs are also lawful heirs entitled to the bequests under the Will dated 14.7.1932 executed by their grand-father as lineal heirs of the First Defendant;
(b) and consequently restrain by an order of permanent injunction the defendants, their agents, servants from demolishing, altering, constructing or reconstructing the suit schedule property;
(c) grant cost of the suit; and"
(2.)The plaintiffs, however, did not implead their brother as a party.
(3.)The bungalow which was the subject-matter of the suit was demolished by Appellants herein whereupon the plaint was amended praying for a decree of mandatory injunction for restoration of the said property.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.