Maturi Pullaiah And Anr. vs Maturi Narasimham And Ors. on 1 March, 1966
Equivalent citations: AIR1966SC1836, AIR 1966 SUPREME COURT 1836, 1966 2 SCWR ... following genealogy will be useful to appreciate the contentions of the parties:
MATURI PEDA VENKAIAH (d. 1928)
___________________________________|___________________________________
| | |
Venkatramaiah (d. 16-1-52) Narasimha (R-I) Saramma
above was again reiterated in AIR 1966 SC 1836 ( Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham ) and thereafter in AIR 1976 SC 807 ( Kale v. Dy. Director ... registration. The question was dealt with in AIR 1966 SC 1836 ( Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham ) where the document in question though was a family
rights in what
properties the parties possess."
16. Similarly in Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham it was held
that even if there ... inferred from long course of
dealings between the parties.
In Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham this Court held that
although conflict of legal claims
said term the Supreme Court in a case of Maturi Pullaiah and Anr. v. Maturi Narasimham ... respectively."
After quoting these words, their Lordships in case of Maturi Pullaiah (supra) further observed that the principles governing family arrangement can be carried
what properties the
parties possess."
"16. Similarly in Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi
Narasimham it was held that even if there was
no conflict ... from long course of dealings between the par
ties.
"In Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham this
Court held that although conflict of legal
claims
decisions such as, Krishna Beharilal v. Gulabchand ( AIR 1971 SC 1041), Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham , ( AIR 1966 SC 1836), Shanmugham Pillai v. Shanmugham Pillai ... must be mutuality in the arrangement.
8. The Apex Court in Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham (AIR 1966 SC 1836) observed that members of joint
arrangement, as held by the Supreme Court in the case of Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham AIR 1966 SC 1936. The observations
rights in what properties the parties possess."
16. Similarly in Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi
Narasimham
require registration. This Court had observed thus:
16. Similarly in Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham ... inferred from a long
course of dealings between the parties.
In Maturi Pullaiah v. Maturi Narasimham this Court held that
although conflict of legal claims
rights f in
what properties the parties possess."
Similarly in Maturi Pullaiah and Anr. v. Maturi
Narasimham and ors.(2) it was held that ... inferred from a long course of dealings between the
parties.
In Maturi Pullaiah and Another v. Maturi
Narasimham and Others- AIR 1966 SC 1836 this
