BONDELADINNE VENKATA SUBBA REDDI Vs. JANAKI GANGAMMA
LAWS(APH)-1958-3-12
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on
March 12,1958
BONDELADINNE VENKATA SUBBA REDDI
Appellant
VERSUS
JANAKI GANGAMMA
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
GAJPATHI NILLAMANI V. GAJAPATHI RADHAMANI [REFERRED TO]ARYAPUTRI V. ALAMELU [REFERRED TO]
KAILASH CHANDRA V. KASHI CHANDRA [REFERRED TO]
PRIVY COUNCIL IN BHUGWANDEEN DOOBEY V. MYNA BAEE [REFERRED TO]
RAMAKKAL V. RAMASWAMI NAICKEN [REFERRED TO]
SUDALAI AMMAL V. GOMATHI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
JIJOYIAMBA BAYI SAIBA V. KAMAKSHI BAYI SAIBA [REFERRED TO]
MST.HARDEI V. BHAGWAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SUBBAMMAL V. KRISHNA AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
APPALASURI V. KANNAMMA NAYURALU [REFERRED TO]
AMMANI AMMAL V. PERIASAMI UDAYAN [REFERRED TO]
RUKMANI AMMAL V. NARASIMHACHARIAR [REFERRED TO]
LATCHAMMA V. SUBHARAGUDHU [REFERRED TO]
ALAMELU AMMAL V. BALU AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
MINAKSHI V. SUBRAMANIAN [REFERRED TO]
PIRMANAYAGAM V. ARUMUGHAM [REFERRED TO]
GAURI NATH V. MT. GAYA KAUR [REFERRED TO]
GAYA KUNWAR V. GAURI NATH [REFERRED TO]
KALIANI ANNI V. THIRUMALAYAPPA [REFERRED TO]
SURENDRA NATH BASU VS. RADHARANI DEBI [REFERRED TO]
PARBATI KUER VS. BAIJNATH PRASAD NARAIN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal comes on before us by reason of a reference made by our learned brother Manohar Pershad, J.
(2.)Defendants 1 to 3 and 6 are the appellants. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of possession of the B schedule properties and mesne profits, past and future. Her case was that the properties belonged to her mother Janaki Busamma, and that on her death, they devolved upon her and her sister Nagamma, and that for the sake of beneficial enjoyment, they partitioned the B Schedule properties and some other properties and that in that partition, the B schedule properties fell to the share of Nagamma. She claimed that on the death of Nagamma in the first week of June, 1950, she was entitled to recover those properties from the defendants who are in possession, thereof.
(3.)Defendants 4 and 5, in possession of items 6 to 8, did not contest the suit. Defendants 1 to 3, in possession of items 1 to 5 pleaded in their written statement that Nagamma had acquired absolute rights in the suit properties and that the plaintiff was estopped from contending that Nagamma had no absolute rights in those properties.
(2.)Defendants 1 to 3 and 6 are the appellants. The suit was filed by the 1st respondent herein for recovery of possession of the B schedule properties and mesne profits, past and future. Her case was that the properties belonged to her mother Janaki Busamma, and that on her death, they devolved upon her and her sister Nagamma, and that for the sake of beneficial enjoyment, they partitioned the B Schedule properties and some other properties and that in that partition, the B schedule properties fell to the share of Nagamma. She claimed that on the death of Nagamma in the first week of June, 1950, she was entitled to recover those properties from the defendants who are in possession, thereof.
(3.)Defendants 4 and 5, in possession of items 6 to 8, did not contest the suit. Defendants 1 to 3, in possession of items 1 to 5 pleaded in their written statement that Nagamma had acquired absolute rights in the suit properties and that the plaintiff was estopped from contending that Nagamma had no absolute rights in those properties.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.