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

1991 Supreme(SC) 443

A.M.AHMADI, M.M.PUNCHHI, A.S.ANAND, K.RAMASWAMY
Ramaswamy Kalingaryar – Appellant
Versus
Mathayan Padayachi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and decree dated 27th October, 1977 passed by the Madras High Court in Second Appeal No. 363 of 1975.

2. The litigating parties are two brothers. We would refer to them by short names as Ramasamy and Muthiah. Their father Rangasami Kalingaraya, besides holding vast freehold properties held leasehold rights in two small parcels of land, whereon there was a hut obtained from Dharmapuram Adheenam, since many years prior to his death on 1-4-1962. After his death, dispute over the leasehold properties arose between the brothers. According to Ramasamy, ever since 1962, he was in possession of the leased properties in his own right as a lessee. On the other hand Muthiah claimed that these -properties had been bequeathed to him by his father under a Will. This led Ramaswamy file a suit for permanent injunction against Muthiah to preserve his possession. The suit was resisted by Muthiah asserting that he was in possession of the suit property on the basis of the Will as well as by allotment in his favour. On the pleadings of the parties, the trial Court raised the following issues on the subject :

1. Whether the plaintiff was in pos







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