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

1994 Supreme(Mad) 265

K.M.NATARAJAN
K. V. K. Janardhanan – Appellant
Versus
State of Tamil Nadu and Others – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:M.K. Kabir, R. Swaminathan, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, the order copy has been issued and the revision petitions have been allowed. The courts' orders have been set aside, and an injunction has been granted as prayed for, with no order as to costs.

To obtain an official copy of this order, you should contact the court where the case was decided, which appears to be the High Court of Judicature at Madras. You may need to submit a formal request or application for a certified copy of the judgment and order.

Please ensure you have the case details, such as the case number (Civil Revision Petitions Nos. 3165 and 3166 of 1992), to facilitate the process. If you require assistance in drafting the application or further guidance on obtaining the order copy, I can help with that as well.


Judgment :-

This revision is directed against the order passed by the Appellate Court below, (learned District Judge, Salem) in C.M.A. Nos.53 and 54 of 1992 confirming the orders passed by the trial court in I.A. Nos. 1247 of 1991 and 390 of 1992.

2. The brief facts, which are necessary for disposal of this revision can be stated as follows :

The revision petitioner herein plaintiff filed the suit for the relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants and their subordinates from in any way altering the fence or putting up any sort of obstruction in the suit road and preventing the plaintiff from using the road to reach his property. The case of the revision petitioner is that he is the owner of the lands in S.Nos.64/3, 64/4A, 64/ 5B and 64/ 2 in Meeyanur village. The said property originally belonged to his grandmother Thulasammal as per the registered sale deed dated 6-9-1944. She executed a registered Will in favour of one K. V. Krishna Iyer on 1-9-1960. On her death, Krishna Iyer succeeded her and became the owner of the property and he died leaving the plaintiff and his other sons and daughters as his legal heirs. The mother of the plaintiff, one Ramathayammal, execute



















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