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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 979

K.SAMPATH
Sadasiva Gounder & Another – Appellant
Versus
Purushothaman – Respondent


Advocates:
T.V. Sivakumar, for Appellants. A.K. Kumarasamy, for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.1925 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tindivanam, are the appellants in the second appeal. They filed the suit for declaration, recovery of possession, mesne profits and for a mandatory injunction to the defendant/respondent to remove the 3 Horse Power motor pumpset and the thatched shed from the suit property on the following averments:

The suit item 1 is of an extent of 20 cents in S.No.156/2. The suit item 3 is a well and pumpset in suit item 1. (So far as suit item 2 is concerned, the defendant does not claim any right in the same and it is not necessary to deal with item No.2). The suit item 1 and other properties originally belonged to the joint family of one Venkatasamy Naidu. There was a partition in the said family on 12. 1959. Individual items and undivided shares in properties including lands and wells were in the possession and enjoyment of individual sharers. The plaintiffs purchased the suit property among others from one of the branches. viz., Ramanujalu Naidus branch under a sale deed dated 24. 1980 for a valuable consideration of Rs.13,000. By virtue of purchase they have clear and unimpeachable title and i



















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