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

2005 Supreme(Mad) 785

S.K.KRISHNAN
Mahalakshmi Ammal. – Appellant
Versus
Kandaswamy and another – Respondent


Advocates:
P. Subramaniam for Appellant.
B.T. Seshadri for Respondents.

JUDGMENT: Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 4.8.1993 passed in A.S.No.17 and 18 of 1993 by the learned District Judge, Salem, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.1566 of 1984 and 1402 of 1992 dated 27.4.1992 by the learned District Munsif Court Salem, the plaintiff in O.S.No.1402 of 1984 and defendant in O.S.No.1566 of 1984 has filed the above second appeals.

2. The facts leading to the filing of these appeals are as follows:

(a) Originally entire property belonged to the family of one Mannnar Achari and Chandriah Achari, who are brothers. After the death of Chandriah Achari, Mannar Achari and the widow of Chandriah Achari and her children entered into a partition deed on 19.5.1942, whereby the suit property was allotted to Chellammal and her sons.The property referred in the rough plan as DGFH was allotted to Mannar Achari, which was purchased by the defendant. Chellammal and her sons sold the entire property ABCD together with the lane CEFG to the plaintiffs. Thereafter, the defendant demolished the old structure in DGFH and constructed a new house.When the defendant began to insert pipes in the GF wall, through which she wanted to drain the wastage water









































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