One wild moment 2015 khmer family in law grandfather in law firm vs grand daughter in law11/20/2022 ![]() Two additional issues were also framed by the trial court which are as follows: ![]() Issue Nos.3 and 4 were accordingly answered in negative. On issueNo.2 it was held that the Will set up by defendant No.3 has been proved and, therefore, the plaintiff was not entitled for a share in the suit schedule properties. What decree or order ?" On issue No.1 the trial court has held that the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of late Shri Kunnaiah. Whether defendants 1, 2 and 4 are entitled to the reliefs prayed for in the counter claim ?ĥ. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief prayed for ?Ĥ. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to1/10th share as contended by her or she is entitled to 1/50th share as contended by defendants 1, 2 and 4 ?ģ. Whether the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of late Shri Kunnaiah as contended by plaintiff or they are joint family properties as contended by defendants 1, 2 and 4 ?Ģ. The trial court framed the following issues: The rest of the defendants did not choose to file written statement.Ĥ. As per the Will he is entitled for a total extent of 32 acres 55 cents of lands in respect of which the plaintiff and other defendants have no right whatsoever. According to defendant No.3,the suit schedule properties are the self-acquired properties of their father, late Shri Kunnaiah who bequeathed the same in his favour under a Will dated 14th June, 1991. The appellant-defendant No.3 filed a separate written statement claiming the right over total 32 acres 55 cents of lands. ![]() Defendant Nos.1, 2 and 4 filed a joint written statement claiming1/5th share in the suit schedule properties, as according to them the suits chedule properties are the ancestral joint family properties. Plaintiff claimed that the suit schedule properties are self-acquired properties of late Shri Kunnaiah and, therefore, she is entitled for 1/10thshare in the suit schedule properties. Defendant No.9 is the son of the first daughter of late Shri Kunnaiah.ģ. She is the second daughter of late Shri Kunnaiah whereas defendant Nos.1,2,3 and 4, including the appellant herein are the sons and defendant Nos.5,6,7 and 8 are the daughters of late Shri Kunnaiah. The facts of the case are as follows: The plaintiff-respondent No.4 filed a suit for partition and separate possession of 1/10th share in the suit schedule properties by metes and bounds and also sought for an enquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 C.P.C. By the impugned judgment and decree the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of trial court and decreed the suit declaring that defendant Nos.1,2,3 and 4 are entitled to 11/50thshare each and the plaintiff, defendant Nos.5,6,7,8 and 9 are entitled to1/50th share each in the suit schedule properties.Ģ. This appeal has been preferred by defendant No.3 against the judgment dated 20th January, 2003 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in R.F.A.No.319 of 1998. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |