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

1990 Supreme(Mad) 218

K.M.NATARAJAN
Arya Vysia Samajam, Represented By President, S. K. Dhandapani Chettiar – Appellant
Versus
Murugesa Mudaliar – Respondent


JUDGMENT

K.M. Natarajan, J.

1. These matters have come up before this Bench on a reference by Nainar Sundaram, J., on account of conflicting views expressed in the judgments of learned single Judges, namely: 1. M. M Ismail, J. (as he then was) in Chakrapani v. Gangammal (1978) 91. L.W. 649 : 1978 T.L.N.J. 238; 2. Maheswaran, J., in T.V. Rathnam v. P. Janakiraman (1985) 98. L.W. 515, Ratnam, J., in Sakthivel v. R.S. Govindan (1988) 2 L.W. 52 and 3. KM. Natarajan, J., in K. Namashivayam v. C.S. Ramakrishna 1985. T.L.N.J. 279, CMP. SR. Nos. 10980 and 10981 of 1985 in C.R.P. No. 161 of 1983. on the important question whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to proceedings to bring on record legal representatives in revision before this Court under Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules 1974. For a proper appreciation of the facts, it is necessary to quote the order of reference made before us which reads as follows:

The above (C.M.P.S.R. Nos. 101067 to 101069 of 1987) are proceedings taken in relation to the demise of the parties in the main revisions. Proceedings have been taken to bring on recqrd the legal representatives and for ancillary relief





















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