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

1978 Supreme(Mad) 627

V.SETHURAMAN
Alamelu alias Chinnakannammal and others – Appellant
Versus
Manickkammal – Respondent


Advocates:
V. Krishnan, for Petitioner.
T. R. Rajagopalan, for Respondent.

ORDER. — This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order of the learned District Munsif of Krishnagiri in O.S. No. 221 of 1974 dated 8th April, 1976. The plaintiff is the sister of the first defendant. The second defendant is the husband of the first defendant and the third defendant is the brother of the second defendant. The suit property belonged to the plaintiff and it was in the occpation of a nephew of her father-in-law. According to her, she could not recover possession inspife of her obtaining a decree. It was stated that the first defendant suggested to her to make appropriate provision in his favour in respect of the suit properties so that his sons would get possession of the properties at least after her lifetime. The plaintiff agreed to this arrangement and she claimed that she affixed her thumb impression on certain blank papers on the basis that the said blank papers would be used for writing a will in the manner contemplated by the parties. However, when the document came to be presented for registration in the Sub-Registrar’s Office, she came to know that the first defendant had written a settlement instead of a will and therefore she refused to regis











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