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

1983 Supreme(Mad) 181

NAINAR SUNDARAM
Moulvi Mohammed – Appellant
Versus
S. Mohaboob Begun – Respondent


Advocates:
S. M. Amjad Nainar, for Petitioners, M. S. Subramaniam, for Respondent,

Judgement

ORDER :- This revision was earlier disposed of by me on 21-12-1982. At that time. the respondent was not represented. Subsequently, pursuant to order in C. M. P. No. 2461 of 1983, the order dated 21-12-1982 was set aside because, the respondent offered convincing explanation for non-appearance at the time when the revision was heard earlier, and I felt that it is better that the matter is disposed of after hearing all the parties. The petitioners herein and one Zaina Bi (since deceased) were granted ryotwari patta under Tamil Nadu Act 30 of 1963 by the Assistant Settlement Officer, Chingleput, by order dated 28-4-1979, Zaina Bi preferred an appeal C. M. A. 57 of 1979 before the Minor Inams Tribunal (Additional Subordinate Judge II) Chingleput and while the said appeal was pending, she died on 21-7-1980. The petitioners herein are the respondents in the said appeal. The respondent herein is the daughter of one Chotima Bi, a sister of Zaina Bi and Chotima Bi predeceased Zaina Bi. As such, it is admitted that the respondent herein cannot, on the aforesaid basis, claim herself to be an heir of Zaina Bi to come on record to prosecute the appeal before the Tribunal. However, put



















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