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

1989 Supreme(Mad) 112

S.NAINAR SUNDARAM
P. Krishnan – Appellant
Versus
Lakshmi Ammal – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S. Nainar Sundaram, J.

1. This Second Appeal arises out of a suit for permanent injunction O.S. No. 402 of 1972, on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Poonamallee. The first-defendant is the appellant herein. The plaintiff is the first-respondent. The second-defendant died pending the suit and the third-defendant, who is the second-respondent herein was added as the legal representative. The relationship amongst the parties runs as follows: The second-defendant was the father. One krishnammal was his second wife. The plaintiff, the first-defendant and the third-defendant through his first wife. The suit-property was a joint acquisition by the second-defendant and Krishnammal. The pleas of the defendants that the acquisition in the name of Krishnammal, was only benami for the second-defendant has been rejected by the two Courts below, as having no substance. On 15.9.1971, as per Ex.A.2, there was a Will by the second-defendant and Krishnammal, as per the terms of which the suit-property should go to the plaintiff for her life and thereafter to here grand-children. Krishnammal died on 5.11.1971. On 17.3.1972, as per Ex.B.6, the second-defendant revoked Ex.A.2. On the













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