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

1979 Supreme(Mad) 105

T.RAMAPRASADA RAO, V.RATNAM
Ramaswami Naidu – Appellant
Versus
M. S. Velappan and others – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Venkataswami, for Appellant.
V. Krishnan, for Respondent.

Ramaprasada Rao, CJ. — This Letters Patent Appeal comes up before us, after leave has been granted by Sethuraman, J., permitting an appeal to be filed against his judgment in S.A. No. 81 of 1973. In the second appeal the learned Judge also considered an application filed by the plaintiff to amend the plaint, whereunder the plaintiff sought for possession of the suit properties. We shall reserve consideration of this part of the Judgment of the learned Judge, relating to the allowance of the application for amendment of the plaint, at a later stage.

2. The relevant facts which led to this appeal may briefly be stated. Alagiriswami Chettiar was the original owner of the suit properties. Under a will, dated 20th August, 1929 (Exhibit B-8), he bequeathed the suit properties in favour of his daughter, Kuppammal. Kuppammal, after she became the owner of the properties made a will, Exhibit B-9, dated 2nd August, 1933, in favour of her mother, Meenakshi Ammal. Meenakshi Ammal executed Exhibit A-1, dated 14th October, 1946, the terms and tenor of which are the subject-matter of this appeal. Under Exhibit A-1, Meenakshi Ammal, while styling the instrument as a “settlement deed”, inter alia, p











































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