SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 835

K.RAMASWAMY, G.B.PATTANAIK
Sarada – Appellant
Versus
Manikkoth Kombra Rajendran – Respondent


ORDER

Though the respondent has been served, he is not appearing either in person or through counsel.

Leave granted.

2. The admitted position is that one T. Sekharan was the owner of the property. He sold 17 cents of land under Ex. A-2, dated 14.7.1982. He was impleaded as the first defendant in the suit laid for recovery of the possession on the ground that after the sale there was an contemporaneous agreement to permit the respondent to remain in possession for a period of four months and on expiry thereof, he was to surrender his possession. Since he had not surrendered the possession, notice Ex. A/4, was issued on December 10, 1982 and on his failure to vacate the same, suit was laid for recovery of possession. Since the first defendant died, the appellants were brought on record as party defendants to the suit. It is their case that the respondent is a money-lender and the property sold was to obtain a loan and he had obtained the sale deed as a collateral security for repayment of the loan of a sum of Rs.20,000/-. After the dispute had arisen, there was an agreement entered by the first defendant and the respondent in the presence of the Sub-Inspector of Police which formed pa










Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top