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

2003 Supreme(Mad) 1009

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Balakrishnan & Another – Appellant
Versus
Chandrasekharan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:M/s.T.Muruga Manickam, Advocate. For the Respondents: ---

Judgment :-

A partition panchayat muchalika dated 23-12-2001 was sought to be marked as defence exhibit on behalf of the petitioners/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff objected to the same, as it is inadmissible under the Indian Registration Act and Indian Stamp Act. Accepting the said objection, the trial Court dismissed the prayer of the petitioners/defendants to mark the said document as an exhibit. Hence, this civil revision petition by the petitioners/defendants.

2. The respondent/plaintiff filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners/defendants. The respondent/plaintiff is the younger brother to the first petitioner. According to the respondent/plaintiff, mother Ramayammal settled the suit property in his favour and that he was put in possession. Since the petitioners attempted to interfere with his possession, he filed the suit.

3. The suit was contested by the petitioners that the suit property was ancestral property and the subject matter of partition panchayat muchalika and therefore, the mother Ramayammal had no right to settle the property in favour of the respondent/plaintiff through the settlement deed.

4. At the time of trial, the partition panchay









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