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

2002 Supreme(Mad) 1532

M.KARPAGAVINAYAGAM
Banumathi @ Karunaiammal – Appellant
Versus
A. P. Athanari & Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioner:N. Manokaran, Advocate. For the Respondents: -----

Judgment :-

Banumathi, third party filed a claim petition under Order 21 Rule 97 and 101 read with 47(1)(3) and Section 151 of C.P.C. to declare that the 'A' Schedule property is her absolute property and also to grant an order of stay of the execution petition in E.P.No.70 of 1989 filed by the L.Rs. of the decree-holder in O.S.No.1306 of 1981. The same was dismissed. Hence, this civil revision petition.

2. According to the petitioner, she purchased the suit property from Guruval, the fourth respondent herein for a valid consideration on 26.4.1999. From that date onwards, she is in actual possession and enjoyment of the property. She has also obtained E.B. service connection and is also paying water tax and house tax to the Panchayat. She came to know that decree has been passed in O.S.No.1306 of 1981 in respect of the suit property. In pursuance of the orders in the execution petition, there is a disturbance to her possession by the Court Amin. So, in order to avoid the dispossession in pursuance of the decree, she filed an application under Order 21 Rule 97 and Section 47 of C.P.C. to declare her right in the 'A' Schedule property and to grant stay of the execution proceedings. Th






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