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

1997 Supreme(Mad) 359

K.GOVINDARAJAN
A. R. Deivasigamani Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
T. N. Somasundaram Nadar – Respondent


Advocates:
V.Santhanam, for Appellant. N.S. Varadachari, for Respondent.

Judgment :

The plaintiff who failed before the trial court is the appellant in the above appeal. The second defendant is the father of the plaintiff and the third defendant is the mother of the plaintiff. The first defendant is the purchaser of the suit property under the sale deed dated 16. 1956 which is sought to be cancelled in the suit. According to the plaintiff the suit property originally belonged to late V.Arumuga Mudaliar, the father of the second defendant and paternal grandfather of the plaintiff. He died on 8. 1953 leaving his widow Kuppammal, the second defendant and the grandson, the plaintiff. On his death, the plaintiff and the second defendant became entitled to the suit property and the said Kuppammal became entitled to the right of maintenance. Under a release deed dated 9. 1953, the second defendant released and extinguished all his rights in favour of the plaintiff. So the plaintiff has become absolute owner of the suit property subject to the liability of maintaining the said Kuppammal who died in the year 1960. The grandfather of the plaintiff borrowed a sum of Rs.1,500 from the first defendant and executed a deed of simple mortgage on 5. 1953. The second defe

















































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