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

2005 Supreme(Mad) 844

R.BANUMATHI
Rajaji – Appellant
Versus
R. Krishnaji – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For The Petitioners:K.Chandrasekaran, Advocate. For The Respondent:Rajendra Kumar, Amicus Curiae, Advocates.

Judgment :-

This revision is preferred against the Fair and Decretal Order made in I.A.No.540/2001 in I.A.No.283/2001 in O.S.No.34/2000 dated 2.11.2001 by the Subordinate Judge, Maduranthakam, dismissing the petition filed under Or.9, R.7 CPC declining to set aside the exparte order to appointment of Receiver passed in I.A.No.283/2001.

2.The Plaintiffs/Defendants 1 and 2 - sons of D-3 – Raja Ram Reddiar, claim that the suit properties 'A to E' schedule properties are the ancestral properties. The Plaintiff has filed the suit O.S.No.34/2000 for partition and allotment of 1/4th share. The suit property relates to a number of items of immovable properties comprised in A to E Plaint Schedule Properties.

3.Defendants 1 to 3 have filed Written Statement. D-1 has filed the Written Statement contending that the Preliminary Decree for partition could be passed in respect of the suit properties excepting 'B' Schedule Property, which is to be allotted as three equal shares and 'C' schedule in four equal shares and that D-1 is entitled to 1/3rd share in 'B' Schedule and 1/4th share in 'C' Schedule. D-2 has filed Written Statement stating that the suit may be decreed as prayed for and that the se





























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