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

1999 Supreme(Mad) 919

A.RAMAN
Rajakannu – Appellant
Versus
Sarojammal and seven others – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. Parthasarathy, for M/s. Sarvabhauman Associates, Advocate for Appellants. Mr. P. Srinivas, Advocate for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. The plaintiff is the appellant herein.

2. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for declaration and permanent injunction. The property measuring 1.13 acres comprised in S. No. 229/3 and situate in the village of Senthurai, is the suit property. The 1st defendant is the wife of the 4th defendant. Defendants 2,3,8 and 9 are the children of the defendants 1 and 4 the 7th defendant is the 1st wife of the 4th defendant. Defendants 5 and 6 are the children of the 7th defendant born of the 4th defendant. The suit property belonged to the 4th defendant, who on 16. 1975, after receiving a consideration of Rs. 3,600 executed a sale in favour of the plaintiff. The sale was executed by the 4th defendant himself and as guardian of his minor children, defendants 8 and 9. As per the recitals in the sale deed, the promissory note executed by the 4th defendant on 6. 1974 was discharged. The plaintiff is a bona fide purchaser of the property for value. The defendants 1 to 3 filed a suit in O.S. No. 344 of 1975 for payment of maintenance and obtained a decree collusively. In execution of the said decree, the suit property was brought up for sale. The defendants 1 to 3 are disputing the r
















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