VENKATASUBBAIAH Vs. THIRUPATHIAH
LAWS(APH)-1955-1-1
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
Decided on January 27,1955

VENKATASUBBAIAH Appellant
VERSUS
THIRUPATHIAH Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

U BA DWE V. MG.LU PAN' [REFERRED TO]
MYTHILI AMMAL V. MAHADEVA AYYAR' [REFERRED TO]
PONNUSWAMY GOUNDAN V. ALAMEL AMMAL' [REFERRED TO]
SM KAMANI DEVI ALIAS SAKUNTALA DEVI VS. SIR KAMESHWAR SINGH OF DARBHANGA [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

B SUBBARAO VS. YELLALA MARAM SATYANARAYANA [LAWS(APH)-1960-7-36] [REFERRED TO]
MANCHIRAJU VISWASWARA SADASIVA RAO and KAMARSU VISWASWARA SADASIVA RAO VS. KAMARSU VIJAYALAXMI [LAWS(APH)-2003-6-84] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Subba Rao, C.J. - (1.)This is Civil Miscellaneous Appeal against the order of the learned subordinate Judge, Narasaraopet, dismissing O. P. No. 1 of 1949, a petitiion filed for leave to sue in forma pauperis against respondents 32 to 36 on the ground that the petitioner has no cause of action against them.
(2.)The said O. P. was filed for leave to sue in froma pauperis for setting aside certain alienations made by the petitioner's father, of the joint family properties and for partition of the scheudle properties. In the petition, it is alleged that the alienations were not supported by consideration and were also made for purposes not binding on the family. The petition discloses that item 7, 8, 11 to 14, 16 to 18, 21 and 26 were alienated after the petitioner's birth, but items 22 to 25 were sold on 4-6-1928 and 3-7-1928 i.e., prior to the petitioner's birth. It is alleged in the petition that the father had another son, who was born in October 1928 and died in March 1930 and, therefore, the said alienations also were not binding on the family.
(3.)The learned Subordinate Judge made an elaborateenquiry and held that it has not been established that the petitioner's father had another sonwho was born and who died between October 1928 and March 1930 and therefore the petitioner hadno cause of action in respect of items 22 to 25. though he held that the petitioner was a pauer and that he has a caquse of action in respect of other items, he dismissed the petition in so far as respondents 32 to 36 were claiming items 22 to 25. The present appeal is filed against the said order.
;


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