Ravichandran R v. Chitralekha
Case brief
What is this about?
First Appeal against a decree for partition. Appellant failed to file written statement at trial. Appellant argued a 1987 will in his favor. High Court allowed application, set aside trial court decree, remitted matter for reconsideration upon production of the will. Operation of will on merit left open.
What did the court decide?
Set aside impugned decree; allowable application allowed; matter remitted to Trial Court to receive written statement and decide on merits after examining the will.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
- 1 - NC: 2023:KHC:41048 RFA No. 1151 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1151 OF 2016 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
RAVICHANDRAN R S/O LATE RAMAMURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.421, MANTHRALAYAM 18TH MAIN, 1ST STAGE, 5TH BLOCK, HBR LAYOUT BANGALORE – 560 043.
…APPELLANT
(BY SRI. LAKSHMANAN A K., ADVOCATE) AND:
1. CHITRALEKHA
W/O LATE BALAGOPAL @ MOHAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS.
Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant's application seeking leave to produce a will warrant allowance despite failure to file written statement earlier?
Whether the impugned judgment awarding partition decree warrants interference by allowing the appellant to prove title via will?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ravichandran R S/o Late Ramamurthy
- respondent
Chitralekha
- respondent
Hemalatha
- respondent
Rani
- respondent
Malá
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · November
- Registered
- Case no.
- RFA/1151/2016
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court