Partition property
GANGO PADHYAYA
(Querist) 07 December 2012
This query is : Resolved
The plaintiff hereby humbly submits that his father Komara. Saidelli had eight children and among them six children is male issues and two are female issues. The names of the male issues are Komara. Yella Rao, Komara. Kanaka Rao, Komara. Simhachalam, Komara. Jagadeeswara Rao, plaintiff, Komara. Srinivasa Rao, Satyavathi, and Laxmi. His father Komara Saidelli during his life time purchased some properties in Madhurawada and Mangapuram Colony. Komara. Saidelli purchased an extent of 288 square yards in survey no 42/2, Relliveedhi, Isukathota, Visakhapatnam Municipal Corporation limits vide Document No: 950/1957 dated: 24-4-1957. The wife of Saidelli Smt. Sattemma also purchased an extent of 350 square yards in Survey No. 42/2 Relliveedhi, Isukathota Visakhapatnam which is also an adjacent site of her husband Saidelli property vide: document no: 5172/1987 dated: 27-07-1987. Komara Saidelli died in the year 1985 and his wife Komara Sattemma died in the year 1997. The daughters of Komara Saidelli married long time back and they were settled monetarily. The shares of the sisters is settled and paid at time of their marriage 1982, 1989. Hence the claim of plaint schedule not arise they shown as perform parties only in the suit. The Suit Schedule Property to the defendants and the Plaintiff to enjoy without interruption.
at this drafting the case is not numbering, It return mention endorsement: marriage daughters is not the criteria in law of central amendment of Hindu succession Act.
what should i do for suit numbering
kindly guide me
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 December 2012
HAVE YOU MADE TWO DAUGHTERS PARTY AS DEFENDANTS.?
IF NOT SUIT SHALL REMAIN SO.
THE FACTS PLEADED BY YOU CAN NOT DEPRIVE DAUGHTERS FROM THEIR SHARE IN PROPERTIES OF THEIR FATHER AND MOTHER IF THEY HAVE DIED INTESTATE.
I THINK THEIR MARRIAGE TOOK PLACE IN THE LIFE TIME OF THEIR PARENT WHEN THEY DID NOT HAVE ANY RIGHT IN THE PROPERTY AS THEIR PARENTS WERE ABSOLUTE OWNER AND COULD SALE WITHOUT MAKING ANY UNDERSTANDING WITH DAUGHTERS OR SON.
THEN PLEA THAT CLAIM IN PROPERTY OF DAUGHTERS WAS SETTLED IN MONETARY TERMS AT THE TIME OF THEIR MARRIAGE IS A MISCONCEIVED PLEADING.
GANGO PADHYAYA
(Querist) 07 December 2012
Daughter shown as only proforma parties to the suit
Kindly guide me in which way i can go for numbering the suit
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 December 2012
WHAT OBJECTION IS REPORTED AGAINST NUMBERING OF CASE BY COURT MUNSRIM/REGISTRAR?
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 December 2012
VERY SOON I SHALL LOG OFF.HENCE HURRY UP IN RESPONSE.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 07 December 2012
I TRIED MY BEST TO GIVE YOU A FAVOR TO GET WHICH YOU ARE TOO LATE.
GOOD NIGHT!
LOGGING OFF NOW.
GANGO PADHYAYA
(Querist) 07 December 2012
Return Endorsement is : marriage daughters is not the criteria in law of central amendment of Hindu succession Act.
what is solution
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 08 December 2012
You need to insert the daughters as defendants instead of performa defendants as those are duly entitled for the share in the property as per HSA even though their marriages were done perfectly and they were given monetary benefits.
GANGO PADHYAYA
(Querist) 08 December 2012
There will be a rival story going in between brothers for my client there is no support from sisters. Hence what can i do get better partition suit numbering.
Is there only showing sisters as defendants
or else in suit valuation property also has to give share
kindly guide me
