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

2004 Supreme(Mad) 784

M.THANIKACHALAM
Srinivasmurthy Mandiram – Appellant
Versus
Gnanasoundari – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Shakespere, for Petitioner; S. Subbiah, for Respondent.

ORDER :- The revision petitioner, aggrieved by the order passed by the trial Court, in not accepting his claim, to strike out the averments in the additional written statement, has preferred this revision petition.

2. The revision petitioner as plaintiff had filed a suit against this respondent and two others, for declaration that the defendants are trespassers, that they should be directed to deliver possession of the property, with past as well as future profits, at specified rates, with some other ancillary relief.

3. The respondent herein, who is the first defendant in the suit, had filed a written statement more or less admitting the title of the plaintiff, claiming lease hold interest over the site, under which, claiming further protection under City Tenants Protection Act, etc., raising certain other defence also.

4. After the filing of the original written statement, the first defendant/respondent herein had filed a petition, before the trial Court, for the reception of an additional written statement and the same was allowed, despite objection by the revision petitioner/plaintiff. The plaintiff/revision petitioner had not questioned the order passed by the trial Court, granti




















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