9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (7) TMI 1371X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r 41, Rule 22 against the judgment and decree dated 28.01.04 passed in Original Suit No. 6169/92 by the XX Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore City. 3. The dispute arose out of a partition suit filed by i) Smt. Nagarathnamma wife of late G. Srinivas and ii) by G. Hemlata who was a minor at the time of filing of the suit in 1992. Plaintiff was the only child of the plaintiff No. 1, who was her mother and natural guardian and she represented the plaintiff No. 2. The plaintiffs are respondent Nos. 1 2 before this Court. 4. This suit was filed for partition claiming 1/3rd share in suit properties and also claiming separate possession by metes and bounds and for mesne profits and other incidental reliefs. 5. The first defendant in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 8. In the written statement filed by the first defendant, the plaint case was denied excepting the relationship between the parties. The other defendants adopted the stand of the first defendant. 9. The Trial Court however decreed the suit for partition in part and held that the plaintiffs are entitled to 1/6th share in the schedule property and to separate possession by metes and bounds. They are also entitled to an enquiry into mesne profits under Order 20, Rule 12 of the Civil Procedure Code. 10. Challenging the said judgment, the present appellants filed a Regular First Appeal being RFA 617/2004 and the plaintiff - respondent filed a cross objection, as mentioned above. 11. In the First Appeal the High Court found that no evide ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e it has to be accepted that those properties are not joint properties but the appellant is the sole owner of those properties. 15. The principle laid down in Section 14(1) of the said Act has been read by courts in a very comprehensive manner since the said Act overrides the old law on Stri Dhana in respect of properties possessed by female Hindu. In Eramma v. Veerupana and Ors.: [1966] 2 SCR 626 , Justice Ramaswami speaking for the Court held that Section 14(1) of the Act contemplates that a female Hindu, who in the absence of the said provision would have been a limited owner of the property, will now become full owner by virtue of the said section. Such female Hindu will have all powers of disposition to make the estate heritable by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
