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

2017 Supreme(SC) 280

R.K.AGRAWAL, A.M.SAPRE
Karunanidhi – Appellant
Versus
Seetharama Naidu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :- T. Harish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Respondents:- V. Ramasubramanian, K. Krishna Kumar, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.

Leave granted.

2. This appeal is filed by the legal representative of the original defendant against the final judgment and order dated 26.07.2012 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in S.A. No. 873 of 2003 whereby the High Court allowed the appeal filed by the respondents (plaintiffs) herein in part and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in respect of ‘A’ Schedule properties and modified the judgment and decree to the effect that each respondent(plaintiff) was held entitled to 1/3rd share in respect of ‘A’ Schedule property except Item No.2 of ‘A’ Schedule and for consequential relief regarding mesne profits in respect of 2/3rd share of the respondents(plaintiffs) in ‘A’ Schedule property and accordingly confirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court in respect of ‘B’ Schedule property.

3. We herein set out the facts, in detail, to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal.

4. The dispute in this appeal is between the heirs of one Perumal Naidu, who was the original ancestor in the family. The l

























































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