Satheesh v. Latha
Case brief
What is this about?
Regular Second Appeal challenging the First Appellate Court's dismissal of a partition suit. The High Court held the subsequent sale of family property was justified for family necessities and clarified the period of limitation, dismissing the appeal.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed. First Appeal confirmed. Trial Court decree set aside and suit dismissed.
What the court decided
- 1 -
NC: 2024:KHC:30482 RSA No. 1843 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.1843 OF 2018 (PAR)
BETWEEN:
- SATHEESH
S/O. LATE. LINGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS R/O. BIDARE, CHELUR HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572216.
- KAMALAMMA W/O. GURUMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/O. RANGAPURA, KASABA HOBLI, TUMAKURU TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572101.
- RATHNAMMA
- W/O. K.L. LOKESHA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellate Court was justified in dismissing the suit on the ground of limitation under Section 60 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Whether the sale of the joint family property by the father was for legal and family necessities?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
SATHEESH S/O. LATE. LINGAIAH
- appellant
KAMALAMMA W/O. GURUMURTHY
- appellant
RATHNAMMA W/O. K.L. LOKESHA
- appellant
MANGALAMMA W/O. DAYANANDA
- respondent
LATHA W/O. B C VEERABHADRAIAH
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Karnataka HC
- Decided on
- · August
- Registered
- Case no.
- RSA/1843/2018
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court