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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 848

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Kannappan – Appellant
Versus
Pargunan and others – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. K. Jayaraman, Advocate for Appellant. Mr.M.K.Kannan, Advocate for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. Plaintiff in 0.S. No. 406 of 1988 on the file of District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu is

the appellant.

.2. Material, avermentsin the case could be summarised thus :

One Thulikkanam had four sons by name Chinnaikuzhanthai alias Chakkarai, Murugan, Veerabathran and Chinnappan. Chinnakuzhanthai had four daughters by name Kuppammal, Chinnakannammal, Theivanai and Vembuliammal. Theivanai and Vembuliammal are alive but they are dumb. Thendavarayan was the only son of Chakkarai and his wife was one Lakshmi. They had no issues. Plaintiff is the son of Chinnakannammal. One of the sons of Thulikkanam by name Veerabathran had four sons by name, Gopal, Arunachalam, Balaraman and Nagooran. Arunachalam is the first defendant and Balaraman and Nagooran are defendants 5 and 6 in the suit. Son of Nagooran is the 7th defendant. Arunachalam s legal heirs are defendants 2 to 4 and 8 to 11 in the suit.

3. According to plaintiff, he has obtained title to the property on the basis of Ex.Al executed by Gopal and Chinnappan. Gopal is the son of Veerabathran and Chinnappan is the son of Thulukanam. According to plaintiff the property belonged to them and the same was settled in favour of pl





















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