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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 406

A.RAMAN
Lingammal and 7 Others – Appellant
Versus
Periappappa alias Lingammal and Another – Respondent


Advocates:
V. Raghavachari, for Petitioners.

Judgment :

This revision is directed against the order passed by the District Munsif, Krishnagiri in I.A.No.628 of 1994 in I.A.No.524 of 1992 in O.S.No. 190 of 1981 on 11. 1994. The respondents herein filed an application before the lower court praying for amendment of the plaint, final decree application and preliminary decree. The petitioners case is that there is some clerical error in the description of property. Therefore, it has to be suitably amended. This application was opposed by the petitioners herein and overruling the objections, the petition was ordered as prayed for.

2. The point for determination is: whether the order passed by the lower court is liable to be set aside?

3.Point: The suit was filed for partition in the year 1981. The preliminary decree was passed on 112. 1985. An appeal was preferred against the said preliminary decree in A.S.No.9 of 1988. The appellate court modified the decree of the trial court by its judgment dated 22. 1990. An application was filed by the plaintiffs viz., the respondents herein for passing of a final decree in I.A.No.524 of 1992. While the said application was pending, on 24. 1994 the petitioners have come up with the present app



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