BABBALLAPATI KAMESWARARAO Vs. KAVURI VESUDEVARAO
LAWS(APH)-1971-6-25
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on June 14,1971

BABBALLAPATI KAMESWARARAO Appellant
VERSUS
KAVURI VESUDEVARAO Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

SANTHAMMA V. NEELAMMA [REFERRED TO]
AYI AMMAL V. SUBRAMANIA ASARI [REFERRED TO]
JAYANTILAL ALIAS JAYPRASAD MANSUKHLAL VS. MEHTA CHHANALAL AMBALAL [REFERRED TO]
MOHINDER SINGH VS. BALBIR KAUR [REFERRED TO]
GULZARA SINGH NANTA SINGH VS. TEJ KAUR [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

PAMULAPATI VENKATA SUBBAMMA VS. GOGINENI VEERAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2002-10-29] [REFERRED TO]
PAMULAPATI VENKATA SUBBAMMA VS. GOGINENI VEERAIAH [LAWS(APH)-2002-10-35] [REFERRED TO]
KUMBALGUNTE GOWRAMMA VS. KUMBALAGUNTE DODDA VEERANNA [LAWS(KAR)-2000-8-25] [REFERRED TO]
KOMALAVALLI AMMAL VS. T A S KRISHNAMACHARI [LAWS(MAD)-1990-10-70] [REFERRED TO]
S PADMAVATHAMMA VS. S R SRINIVASA [LAWS(KAR)-2003-9-72] [REFERRED TO]
PUSHPA (DECEASED) AND OTHERS VS. N. VENKATESH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-752] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Gopal Rao Ekbote, J. - (1.)This appeal is preferred (referred?) by K. Ramachandrarao, J., as the learned Judge thought that the question which arises for consideration in the appeal is of considerable importance and is also likely to arises frequently. The question involves the interpretation of Section 15 (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, hereinafter called "the Act".
(2.)The facts are very brief and are not in dispute. The property in question belonged to one K. Mahalakshmamma, wife of Ramakrishnayya. The plaintiff is the son of Janakiramaiah, the eldest brother of the said Ramakrishanayya. Mahalakshmamma died issue less. The plaintiff claims to be entitled to her properties. The 1st defendant is the paternal uncles son of Mahalakshmamma. The 2nd defendant is the brother-in-law of the 1st defendant. They have no manner of right in the suit properties. The suit was therefore originally laid for declaration of plaintiffs title and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from interfering with his possession. It was subsequently altered to that of possession and mesne profits.
(3.)The defendants set up a will executed by K. Mahalakshmamma dated 24-9-1961. They denied the alleged adoption of the plaintiff by K. Mahalakshmamma.
;


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