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

2006 Supreme(Mad) 52

P.JYOTHIMANI
Lalitha & Another – Appellant
Versus
Selvaraj – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: For the Appellants:R. Muralidharan, Advocate. For the Respondent:V. Raghavachari, Advocate.

Judgment :-

The plaintiffs in the suit are appellants. The plaintiffs filed the suit for permanent injunction.

2. Case of the plaintiffs is that the first plaintiff is the daughter of second plaintiff and the defendant is the son of the second plaintiff. The suit property was originally a house site. The TADCO, under a scheme, has built up superstructure to the persons belonging to Schedule Castes. The house site given by the said Corporation to the first plaintiff was sold by her to the defendant. The site, which was given to the second plaintiff / father is the suit property. The defendant was also allotted another house site. In the house site given to the second plaintiff, the second plaintiff has put up a compound wall, apart from effecting some changes. The house site given to the second plaintiff is adjacent to the house site given to the defendant. The second plaintiff has been enjoying the suit property from 1978 onwards and thereafter, on settlement, he has given the said house site to the first plaintiff and both the plaintiffs are living in the suit property. Due to the reason that the second plaintiff has executed a gift deed in favour of the first plaintiff, the defend












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