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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 776

K.SAMPATH
Muthalammal and others – Appellant
Versus
Sathya Naicker – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr.A. Venkatesan, for Mr.M. Kamalanathan Advocate for Appellants. Mr.T. Ravikumar, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

.1. The plaintiffs in O.S.No.338 of 1977 and the defendants in O.S.No.19 of 1978, both the suits on the file of the District Munsif, Kovilpatti, are the appellant. The defendant in O.S.338 of 1977 and the plaintiff in O.S.No.19 of 1978 has filed the cross objections in S.A.No.369/84

2. The suit O.S.No.338 of 1977 was filed by the appellants for declaration and injunction in respect of a house property. O.S.No.19 of 1978 was filed by the respondent for declaration and injunction in respect of landed properties. The first appellant and the respondent are sister and brother and appellants 2 and 3 are the sons of the first appellant.

.3. The facts necessary for the disposal of th second appeals are as follows: Under the original of Ex-A-1 the house property was purchased jointly by the first appellant and the respondent on 3. 1965. This was immediately followed by a settlement deed under the original of Ex.A-2 dated 3. 1965 under which the respondent purported to settle his share in the house property in favour of appellants 2 and 3 retaining for himself a life interest. According to the appellants, though the respondent retained a right to joint possession, the said join























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