REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

NARAYANAN RAJENDRAN Appellant

V/S

LEKSHMY SAROJINI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

PRATAP CHUNDER V. MOHANDRANATH [REFERRED TO]
RUDR PRASAD V. BAIJ NATH [REFERRED TO]
RAM GOPAL V. SHAKSHATON [REFERRED TO]
MADHAVAN NAIR V. BHASKAR PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA V. MOHD. KUNHI [REFERRED TO]
M. RAMAPPA V. M. BOJJAPPA [REFERRED TO]
DEITY PATTABHIRAMASWAMY VS. S HANYMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
BHOLARAM VS. AMEERCHAND [REFERRED TO]
PANCHUGOPALBARUA VS. UMESH CHANDRA GOSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
KSHITISH CHANDRA PURKAIT VS. SANTOSH KUMAR PURKAIT [REFERRED TO]
SHEELCHAND VS. PRAKASH CHAND [REFERRED TO]
DNYANOBABHAURAO SHEMADE VS. MAROTI BHAURAO MARNOR [REFERRED TO]
KANAI LAL GARARI VS. MURARI GANGULY [REFERRED TO]
ISHWAR DASS JAIN DEAD THR LRS VS. SOHAN LAL [REFERRED TO]
ROOP SINGH DEAD VS. RAM SINGH DEAD [REFERRED TO]
SANTOSH HAZARI VS. PURUSHOTTAM TIWARI [REFERRED TO]
K RAJ VS. MUTHAMMA [REFERRED TO]
KANTI DEVI VS. POSHI RAM [REFERRED TO]
THIAGARAJAN VS. VENUGOPALASWAMY B KOIL [REFERRED TO]
COMMISSIONER HINDU RELIGIOUS and CHARITABLE ENDOWMENT VS. P SHANMUGAMA [REFERRED TO]
H P PYAREJAN VS. DASAPPA [REFERRED TO]
GURDEV KAUR VS. KAKI [REFERRED TO]
RADHA AMMA VS. C BALAKRISHNAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRIKA SINGH VS. SARJUG SINGH [REFERRED TO]
CHACKO VS. MAHADEVAN [REFERRED TO]
BASAYYA I MATHAD VS. RUDRAYYA S MATHAD [REFERRED TO]
BOKKA SUBBA RAO VS. KUKKALA BALAKRISHNA [REFERRED TO]
NUNE PRASAD VS. NUNE RAMAKRISNA [REFERRED TO]
DHARAM SINGH VS. KARNAIL SINGH [REFERRED TO]
NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI VS. RAJAT VIDHYARTHI [REFERRED TO]
U R VIRUPAKSHAIAH VS. SARVAMMA [REFERRED TO]
HARJEET SINGH VS. AMRIK SINGH [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23rd March, 2000 passed by the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in Second Appeal No. 518 of 1990.

(2.) The appellant is aggrieved by the order of the High Court because the High Court in second appeal under section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 reversed the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court. According to the appellant, the second appeal did not involve any question of law much less any substantial question of law warranting interference by the High Court under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

(3.) The facts which are necessary to dispose of the appeal are recapitulated as under: The appellants were defendants in the suit and the respondents were the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs filed a suit contending that the property in question is a subtarwad property of defendant No. 1 and, therefore, the members of the subtarwad including the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 1 to 3 are entitled to 1/11 share each for each member of the subtarwad under the customary law. Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 and defendant Nos. 4 and 5 who got assignment of the property for a valuable consideration from defendant Nos. 1 to 3 contended that the suit property is the personal property of defendant No. 1 who has exclusive right of title and possession ever since 1103 M.E. under registered settlement deed executed by the grandfather and grandmother of defendant No. 1, therefore, the suit property is not partible.

Click here to view full judgment.

NARAYANAN RAJENNDRA Vs. LEKSHMY SAROJINI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address