VEERATTALINGAM Vs. RAMESH
LAWS(SC)-1990-9-60
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on September 18,1990

Veerattalingam And Ors Appellant
VERSUS
Ramesh And Ors Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

RAMACHANDRA SHENOY VS. HILDA BRITE [RELIED ON]
BODDU VENKATAKRISHNA RAO VS. BODDU SATYAVATHI [DISTINGUISHED]



Cited Judgements :-

Lalji Rao VS. Jayarama Rao [LAWS(MAD)-2004-4-67] [REFERRED TO]
KAMLESHWARI DEVI VS. STATE [LAWS(PAT)-2001-2-25] [REFERRED TO]
UMA DEVI NAMBIAR VS. T C SIDHAN [LAWS(SC)-2003-12-77] [REFERRED TO]
CAP. VIJAY KUMAR TREHAN VS. SUSHIL KUMAR TREHAN [LAWS(DLH)-2014-1-395] [REFERRED TO]
DEOCHAND BHURA VS. STATE OF M.P. [LAWS(MPH)-2013-3-157] [REFERRED TO]
S. BALAKRISHNAN (SOLE APPELLATE DECLARED AS MAJOR AND HER FATHER P. SANMINATHAN DISCHARGED FROM THE GUARDISHIP VIDE ORDER OF COURT DATED 01.09.2016 MADE IN C.M.P.NO.13786 OF 2016 IN S.A.NO.1474 OF 2010) VS. V. GOKILNATH [LAWS(MAD)-2016-12-58] [REFERRED TO]
T. RAMESH AND OTHERS VS. LAXMAMMA AND OTHERS [LAWS(APH)-2017-6-59] [REFERRED TO]
MAHENDRA GAJANAN KARVE VS. JITENDRA GAJANAN KARVE [LAWS(BOM)-2019-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
GOWRAMMA VS. PADMAMMA [LAWS(KAR)-2020-2-79] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Sharma J. - (1.)This appeal by special leave is directed against the decree passed by the High Court in favour of the plaintiff respondents in a suit for partition.
(2.)The property in suit belonged to Smt. Rathinammal, who after executing a registered will died in 1942. According to the terms of the will her two sons Natesan, defendant No. 1, and Subramanian, plaintiffs' witness No. 2 (PW-2), were to remain in possession of the properties without any power of alienation and had to pay the taxes and conduct regularly certain religious festivals, and thereafter their sons were to manage the properties on similar terms. The will further provides that after their attaining majority the great grandsons, i.e., the son's sons'sons of the testatrix will get the properties as absolute owners.
(3.)Subramanian, the younger son of the testatrix, who has been in the present suit examined as the second witness on behalf of the plaintiffs, has one son Arunachalam, defendant No. 15. The three plaintiffs, Ramesh, Ganesh and Sivalingam are the sons of the defendant No. 15. The defendant No. 1 got four sons and ten sons' sons. The main dispute in the suit is about the share which the plaintiffs are entitled to under the terms of the will. They claim, that they being the only grandsons of Subramanian have half share in the properties, the remaining half going to the grandsons of the defendant No. 1, namely, defendants Nos. 5 to 14. On behalf of the defendants it is pleaded that the suit properties have to be divided amongst all the 13 great grandsons of the testatrix in equal shares. The defendants also contended that the suit was fit to be dismissed as the defendant No. I and the defendant No. 15 had finally partitioned the properties in 1975, and no question of a further partition arises. The maintainability of the suit was also challenged on the ground of minority of the plaintiffs as also on the basis of the rule against perpetuity.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.