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

1993 Supreme(SC) 116

L. M. SHARMA, S. P. BHARUCHA, YOGESHWAR DAYAL
Ameena Bl – Appellant
Versus
Kuppuswami Naidu – Respondent


Advocates:
A.T.M.SAMPATH, A.V.RANGAM, S.Ranganathan

JUDGMENT

YOGESHWAR DAYAL, J.:—This is an appeal by Ameena Bi (plaintiff) against the judgment of the learned single Judge of the Madras High Court dated 26th July, 1976 . The respondents are Kuppuswami Naidu (defendant No. 1) and five others (defendants 2 to 6). The High Court by the impugned judgment took the view that the suit filed by the plaintiff/ appellant herein was barred under the provisions of Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and also barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

2. The High Court had reversed the concurrent judgments of the District Munsif, Tindivanam. dated 21st November, 1970 and the lower appellate Court i.e. Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore dated 30th October, 1972. The trial Court and the lower appellate Court had decreed the plaintiffs title to the suit properties in dispute and also passed decree for recovery of possession of the same with costs. The plaintiff was also granted a decree for mesne profits to be computed in accordance with the provisions of Order 20, Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for a period of three years prior to the suit. The plaintiff/ appellant filed the Special Leave Petition which was granted on 20th August, 1



















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