SANKARAN BHASKARAN . vs KUMARAN SARASAMMA . — C.A. No. 2401/2002

Case under Section XI-B. Status: Disposed.

Disposed

CNR: SCIN010004242002

Filing Date

05-Jan-2002

Registration No

C.A. No. 2401/2002

Diary Number

424/2002

Order Date

18-Jan-2013

Document Type

ROP - of Main Case

Disposal Type

Dismissed

Last updated 13-Jun-2026

Acts & Sections

Section XI-B

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.SANKARAN BHASKARAN .

    Adv. T. G. NARAYANAN NAIR

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.KUMARAN SARASAMMA .

    Adv. K. RAJEEV M. P. VINOD

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 18-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  3. 16-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  4. 15-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  5. 15-Jan-2013

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  6. 26-Sep-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  7. 14-Aug-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  8. 28-Mar-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  9. 28-Mar-2012

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  10. 07-Dec-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  11. 21-Apr-2011

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  12. 22-Mar-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  13. 02-Feb-2010

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  14. 10-Dec-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  15. 25-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  16. 13-Nov-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  17. 01-Oct-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  18. 21-Aug-2009

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  19. 11-Jul-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  20. 20-Feb-2006

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  21. 03-Oct-2005

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  22. 15-Dec-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  23. 15-Sep-2003

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  24. 22-Mar-2002

    ROP - of Main CaseView PDF

  25. 05-Jan-2002

    Case filed

    Registration No. C.A. No. 2401/2002

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: C.A. No. 2401/2002 (Sankaran Bhaskaran v. Kumaran Sarasamma) The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal on January 18, 2013. The Court held that a 1922 Settlement Deed was neither a valid gift nor a will, as it reserved lifetime maintenance rights to the executor, failing to meet Section 122 of the Transfer of Property Act's gift requirements. Since the deed did not transfer title to appellants' predecessors, the respondents' subsequent purchase of the land was valid, and appellants had no claim under the settlement deed. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

Search Another Case