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

1990 Supreme(Mad) 586

SOMASUNDARAM
M. Abdul Hakkim – Appellant
Versus
M. K. M. Abdul Salam – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Somasundaram, J.

1. The Second respondent in O.S. No. 441 of 1981, who failed before both the Courts below, is the appellant in this second appeal. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to in this second appeal by their nomenclature given in the suit

2. The facts of the case necessary for the disposal of the second appeal are as follows:

The plaintiff filed the suit, O.S. No. 441 of 1981 on the file of the Sub Court, Tiruchi against the defendants for recovery of possession of the properties described in Schedules A, B and C and for other reliefs contending that the defendants 1 and 2 in the suit became lessees under the plaintiff in respect of A Schedule properties under a lease deed dt. 13-9-1975 for a period of six years on monthly rent of Rs.350/- and that the defendants had also executed a lease agreement dt. 22-9-1975 in respect of the machineries and "Thalavada Samans" described in B and C Schedules in the plaint, and that the said lease deeds were executed for the purpose of running a tannery. The further case of the plaintiff is that the lease of both the building and the machineries is for a fixed period of six years on and from 1-9-1975.

3. The defenda











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