MONTHI MENEZES(D) BY LR. vs DEVAKI AMMA (D) BY LR.. — C.A. No. 3539/2009
Case under Section XII-B. Status: Disposed.
CNR: SCIN010179022008
Filing Date
03-Jul-2008
Registration No
C.A. No. 3539/2009
Diary Number
17902/2008
Order Date
23-Apr-2019
Document Type
Judgement - of Main Case
Neutral Citation
2019 INSC 556
Disposal Type
Appeals Allowed
Last updated 04-Jul-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.MONTHI MENEZES(D) BY LR.
Adv. VAIJAYANTHI GIRISH
Respondent(s)
-
1.DEVAKI AMMA (D) BY LR..
Adv. K. V. BHARATHI UPADHYAYA[R-1.1] ANITHA SHENOY (Dead / Retired / Elevated) [R-2]
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
23-Apr-2019
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Apr-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
23-Apr-2019
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
-
28-Mar-2019
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
28-Mar-2019
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
-
27-Mar-2019
Next Week / Week Commencing / C.O.Week
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abhay Manohar Sapre and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dinesh Maheshwari
-
09-Jan-2018
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
09-Jan-2018
First hearing
Initial hearing scheduled
-
16-Jan-2013
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
14-Dec-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
27-Jul-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
07-Feb-2012
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-May-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
05-Feb-2009
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
19-Dec-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
12-Nov-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
08-Sep-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
18-Jul-2008
ROP - of Main CaseView PDF
-
03-Jul-2008
Case filed
Registration No. C.A. No. 3539/2009
-
[ 2019 INSC 556 ]
Judgement - of Main CaseView PDF
Summary The Supreme Court allowed Monthi Menezes's appeal and remanded the case to the Karnataka High Court for fresh consideration. The Court found that the High Court had failed to adequately address the Land Tribunal's detailed findings that Bona Menezes (appellant's predecessor) was in possession of 3.07 acres of land (Survey No. 119/2A1) as on the appointed date (01.03.1974) and that this land was essential for cultivating adjacent parcels. The Supreme Court noted the High Court overlooked the statutory definition of "land" under Section 2(18) of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which encompasses land capable of being used for agricultural purposes or purposes subservient thereto. Status quo regarding possession was maintained pending the High Court's fresh decision. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts