CaseMinister
CaseMinister › Judgments › Supreme Court › 2016 › Chamayath Cheriyannal (d) Th Lrs. v. Chamayath Cheriyannal H

Chamayath Cheriyannal (d) Th Lrs. v. Chamayath Cheriyannal Hajirommabi .

Supreme Court of India · 4 February 2016

Court
Supreme Court of India
Decided
4 February 2016
Case no.
C.A. No. 4925 of 2006
Bench
Anil R. Dave, Adarsh Kumar Goel
Length
2 pages
Have a question about this judgment?

Ask our Legal AI about it on WhatsApp: free, no signup, in English or Hindi.

Write it first.

JUDGMENT

NON-REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.4925 OF 2006

CHAMAYATH CHERIYANNAL (D) TH LRS. & ANR. ... APPELLANT(S)

VS.

CHAMAYATH CHERIYANNAL HAJIROMMABI & ORS. ... RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

Anil R.Dave, J.

1.
Heard the learned counsel.

2. Upon perusal of the impugned judgment as well as the judgment delivered by the Trial Court, we are of the view that the findings arrived at by the Trial Court with regard to the partition among the members of the Tarwad were correct and in our opinion the High Court ought not to have interfered with the said findings.

3. Once there was a partition among the members of the Tarwad, and when there are two different thavazhy, namely Attakoya thavazhy and Syed Koya thavazhy, and when some share of one thavazhy had been gifted, the same could not have been objected to by a member of another thavazhy.

4. For the aforesaid reason, we agree with the findings arrived at by the Trial Court. We set aside the impugned judgment delivered by the High Court and restore the order and decree passed by the Trial Court.

JUDGMENT

5. In view of the above, the civil appeal is disposed of as allowed. No order as to costs.

..............J. [ANIL R. DAVE]

.................J. [ADARSH KUMAR GOEL] New Delhi; 4th February, 2016.

Ask CaseMinister about Chamayath Cheriyannal (d) Th Lrs. v. Chamayath Cheriyannal Hajirommabi .

Your 24×7 legal assistant on WhatsApp answers with the judgments that apply, in English or Hindi. No signup needed.

Questions about this judgment, or a case like it?Ask on WhatsApp