Juguna Bai And Anr. vs Sardar Surjeet Singh And Ors. on 30 November, 2007
In G.N. Kishore Reddy v. R. Venugopal Rao (supra), this Court explained the distinction between the legal heir and legal representative, and held as under:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.49 seconds)Documents citing
G.N. Kishore Reddy vs R. Venugopal Rao And Ors. on 27 April, 2004
Juguna Bai And Anr. vs Sardar Surjeet Singh And Ors. on 13 November, 2007
In G.N. Kishore Reddy v. R. Venugopal Rao 2004 (4) ALT 178 : 2004 (3) ALD 683, this Court explained the distinction between the legal heir and legal representative, and held as under:
Burramukku Sumathi, vs Burramukku Sankara Reddy Died on 4 November, 2022
In G.N. Kishore Reddy (1 supra), it was held at paragraph
Nos.15 & 23 as follows:
Nishi Sareen vs Asha Rani Sareen on 31 October, 2023
8.39 As far as Sh. Pradeep Sareen is concerned, he is the
son of the plaintiff/respondent thus her legal heir but his interest
throughout the trial has been averse to that of the
plaintiff/respondent. In fact as discussed above he had deposed
against the interest of plaintiff/respondent before the Ld. Trial
Court. During his examination as DW3 it emerged on record that
not only his mother but he was also not on cordial terms with his
father. His cross examination in this regard read as " It is correct
RCA No. 73/19 & 72/19 Nishi Sareen & anr. Vs. Asha Rani Sareen 36/38
that my father got vacated shop under my possession by filing a
suit against me.........I never filed any suit against my mother
regarding the suit property. (Vol. I want to file a suit for partition
against my mother because it is a joint family property)".
Therefore he is also impleaded as proforma appellant no. 4 in the
present matter. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the
law laid down in G.N. Kishore Reddy Vs. R. Venugopal Rao
and Ors. MANU/AP/0212/2004.
Nishi Sareen vs Asha Rani Sareen on 31 October, 2023
8.39 As far as Sh. Pradeep Sareen is concerned, he is the
son of the plaintiff/respondent thus her legal heir but his interest
throughout the trial has been averse to that of the
plaintiff/respondent. In fact as discussed above he had deposed
against the interest of plaintiff/respondent before the Ld. Trial
Court. During his examination as DW3 it emerged on record that
not only his mother but he was also not on cordial terms with his
father. His cross examination in this regard read as " It is correct
RCA No. 73/19 & 72/19 Nishi Sareen & anr. Vs. Asha Rani Sareen 36/38
that my father got vacated shop under my possession by filing a
suit against me.........I never filed any suit against my mother
regarding the suit property. (Vol. I want to file a suit for partition
against my mother because it is a joint family property)".
Therefore he is also impleaded as proforma appellant no. 4 in the
present matter. Reliance in this regard may be placed upon the
law laid down in G.N. Kishore Reddy Vs. R. Venugopal Rao
and Ors. MANU/AP/0212/2004.
Gande Vishnu Madhav Rao Through His ... vs Puppala Chinthamani on 26 September, 2023
"21. With great respect to the learned Judge, I am of the view n
that the said judgment does not represent correct position of
law. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment of
the Full Bench of the same High Court in Mohinder kaur v.
Piara Singh 2 .
Deepak Batra & Anr vs Kavita Batra & Ors on 22 July, 2022
11. At this stage, it would be useful to refer to the judgment in the
case of G.N. Kishore Reddy vs. R.Venugopal Rao and Ors., AIR 2004
Andhra Pradesh 498, wherein it has been held as follows:
Shyam Bihari Sonthalia vs Munnulal & Ors on 23 September, 2008
representative" on the other hand is a person who is entitled to represent
the estate of the deceased, at least in the proceedings in which the
necessity arises. Further, a distinction has to be maintained, depending
on whether the interests of the legal heirs are in any way in conflict with
those of the deceased. [ reference may be had to AIR 2004 Andhra
Pradesh 498- G.N. Kishore Reddy Vs. R. Venugopal Rao.]
Papolu Veera Raghavaiahdied vs Malineni Subba Rao on 10 October, 2023
In most of the
cases the legal heirs themselves happened to be the legal
8
Dr. VRKS, J
C.R.P.No.2204 of 2019 &
C.R.P.No.2393 of 2019
representatives. There are, however, certain exceptions to this.
If the devolution of the property takes place otherwise than
through succession, the legal heir cannot be treated as legal
representative. When the legal heirs are willing to abide by the
actions of the legatee there cannot be any objection for the
Court to permit the legatee to be impleaded as the legal
representative vide G.N.Kishore Reddy v. R.Venugopal Rao 1.
Gande Vishwa Madav Rao vs Gande Laxmi Devi Died on 26 September, 2023
"21. With great respect to the learned Judge, I am of the view n
that the said judgment does not represent correct position of
law. In this regard reference may be made to the judgment of
the Full Bench of the same High Court in Mohinder kaur v.
Piara Singh 2 .
1