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

2019 Supreme(SC) 2187

ARUN MISHRA, M.R.SHAH
Mayandi – Appellant
Versus
Pandarachamy – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Abhinav Ramkrishna, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Parijat Kishore, Advocate, for the Respondent

ORDER

1. Leave granted.

2. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court is liable to be set aside on the short and singular ground that in the previous suit i.e. Original Suit No.85/1996 a similar relief was prayed by Pechimuthu S/o. Arumgasamy Thevar, Minor Manimegalai D/o. Pechimuthu, Thilagavathi (Minor) D/o. Pechimuthu and Arul Pandian (Minor) D/o. Pechimuthu. Prayer was made for declaration of title and for permanent injunction on the basis of Will dated 05.12.2004 executed by Sadaiyappa Konar which became operative on his death on 20.02.1995. O.S. No.85 of 1996 was filed in which following prayer was made:-

    "A. declaring the plaintiffs 2 to 4 is title to the plaint 1 st schedule property.

    B. granting the consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from disturbing the plaintiffs title, possession and enjoyment of the plaint 1 st schedule property.

    C. granting permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from sub letting the 2 nd schedule house without the written permission of the plaintiff.

    D. awarding the costs of this suit to the plaintiffs."

3. It was on the basis of the Will, Civil Suit No.85/1996 was. It was dism

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