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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 709

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Ramalatchumi Ammal – Appellant
Versus
T. Jeevanantham – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. K. Chandrasekaran, Advocate for Petitioner.

Judgment :

1. Defendant in O.S.No. 576 of 1992 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Ambasamudram is the revision petitioner.

2. Respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale alleged to have been executed by the petitioner herein. The suit was filed before end of 1992. Written statement was also filed by the petitioner.

3. After issues were suggested, the case was included in the list. Plaintiff was examined as P.W.1 and when the case was posted for evidence of P.W.2, an application was filed in I.A.No. 426 of 1997 seeking permission to file counter claim. In the affidavit in support of the application, it is averred that she wanted to declare the agreement as void and on 27. 1997, since the plaintiff trespassed into the property, she wanted recovery of possession in the suit itself.

4. The same was seriously opposed by the plaintiff and by the impugned order the lower court rejected the permission sought for. That means the counter claim was refused to be entertained.

5. The same is challenged in this revision.

6. ‘Notice of motion’ was ordered. An interim stay for a period was also granted by the learned Judge of this Court















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