S.NATARAJAN
R. Muthammal – Appellant
Versus
Narmada and others – Respondent
2. With regard to the properties of one Rangaswami Naidu, there was a partition suit in O.S. No. 134 of 1969 to which the members of the family of Rangaswami Naidu were parties. Rangaswami Naidu had two sons of whom one Venkataswami Naidu was the second. In the partition suit, not only Venkataswami Naidu, but his son, the ninth defendant in the present suit were made parties. Ultimately the suit was compromised on 9th July, 1969 and a compromise decree was passed in the said suit under the terms of which, the A schedule properties in the present suit were given to Venkataswami and his minor son, and in addition, the B schedule property herein was given to the minor to be enjoyed by him absolutely. In the present suit, the plaintiff who is the widow of Rangaswami Naidu claims that subsequent to the compromise decree she came to know through her son Venkataswami that he had already been married to one Janaki and as such, Venkataswami’s
K. H. Md. Ishaque Sahib v. H. Md. Saddiq Sahib : [1970] 1 M.L.J. 207
Sankaranarayana v. Kandaswami I.L.R. [1956] Mad. 1300; A.I.R. 1956 Mad. 670 : [1956] 2 M.L.J. 411
Somasundaram Pillai v. Janaki Ammal [1955] 68 L.W. 144; : [1955] 1 M.L.J. 310
Adinarayana v. Rattamma 57 L.W. 392; A.I.R. 1944 Mad. 408 [2] : [1944] 1 M.L.J. 497
Aziam Bi v. Zohara Bi [1949] M.W.N. 681; A.I.R. 1950 Mad. 190 : [1949] 2 M.L.J. 533
Akhandala v. Damodara A.I.R. 1952 Mad. 810 : [1952] 2 M.L.J. 145
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.