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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 554

K.GNANAPRAKASAM
Kannu Gounder – Appellant
Versus
Natesa Gounder – Respondent


Advocates:
T. R. Rajaraman, for Petitioner; S. Rajaraman, for Respondent.

ORDER :- This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 29-8-2003 made in E.P. 186/99 in O.S. 696 of 1984 on the file of Additional District Munsif, Vellore.

2. The Revision petitioner is the defendant/judgment debtor. The respondent/plaintiff obtained a decree in O.S. 696/84 and the decree in his favour was confirmed in A.S. 81/99, Pursuant to the same, the decree-holder filed an execution petition for delivery of the suit property.

3. The revision petitioner objected the delivery of possession by filing a counter wherein he has stated that the plaintiff obtained a decree for mandatory injunction and that has got to be executed within a period of three years from the date of decree as per Article 135 to Indian Limitation Act and the decree was passed on 18-12-1991 and the second appeal was dismissed on 29-9-95. But, the Execution Petition was filed on 1-7-99 which is beyond the period of three years. Therefore, the plaintiff/decree-holder is not entitled to have delivery of possession after removing the building constructed in the suit property as the decree for mandatory injunction was not executed within a period of three years. The said contention was negatived












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