Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
7Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
When a Suit is Based on Document - If Such Document is Illegal - Then Entire Suit Has to Go 2010 Sc

When a Suit is Based on Document - If Such Document is Illegal - Then Entire Suit Has to Go 2010 Sc

Ratings: (0)|Views: 845|Likes:
By supreme court of India Justice Dr Mukundsharma & Justice Anil R. Dave
By supreme court of India Justice Dr Mukundsharma & Justice Anil R. Dave

More info:

Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

07/20/2013

pdf

text

original

 
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIACIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTIONCIVIL APPEAL NO. 7237 OF 2010[Arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 5344 of 2006] Smt. Ajambi (Dead) By Lrs... AppellantVersusRoshanbiand Ors...Respondents
JUDGMENTDr. Mukundakam Sharma, J.
1.Leave granted.
 
2.This Special Leave Petition is directed against the judgmentand order dated 16.11.2005 passed by the High Court oKarnataka allowing the appeal filed by the respondents herein whereby the High Court has restored the judgment and decree of the trial court. The respondents Nos. 1 to 8 were the plaintiffsbefore the trial Court and Usmansab Shaikaji Attar was the originaldefendantin thesuit which was filedseeking adecree forpartitionand separate possession of alleged 7/8
th
share in the suit propertybearing CTS No. 883/A and 883/B, situated at AralikattiDeshpande Galli, Belgaum. It was stated in the plaint thatShaikaji Attar, the father of the respondents and the originaldefendant had two wives, namely Halimabi and Roshanbi who wasthe plaintiff No. 1.
 
3.It was submitted in the plaint that Shaikaji Attar died in oraround 1969 leaving behind his second wife Roshanbi, i.e. plaintifNo. 1, six sons i.e. plaintiff Nos. 2 to 6. and defendant No. 1 andtwo daughters i.e. plaintiff Nos. 7 and 8 and heir of pre-deceasedson Umarsab.4.Inthe saidsuit, thepartiesledevidence. Theplaintiff No. 2 was examined as PW-1 and the original defendant wasexamined as DW-1. Both the plaintiffs-respondents and theoriginal defendant also produced certain documents which wereexhibited in the suit. The trial Court by its judgment and decreedated 27.7.1988 decreed the suit of the plaintiff by awarding 1/8
th
share to the plaintiffs 1 to 6 and 1/16
th
share to plaintiffs 7 and 8

Activity (7)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 thousand reads
1 hundred reads
ak_1234 liked this
Neha Agarwal liked this
ak_1234 liked this
Smart liked this
Jithendra Hj liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->