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

1993 Supreme(Mad) 47

THANGAMANI
S. Kuppurathinam and others – Appellant
Versus
A. R. Munirathinam – Respondent


Advocates:
P. Veeraraghavan, for Appellants. C.Jeganathan, for Respondent.

Judgment :

The appellants are the plaintiffs before the trial court. They instituted O.S.No1187 of 1981 on the file of the learned District Munsif of Kancheepuram for declaration that the first appellant is entitled to ‘D’ schedule properties and for directing defendants 1 and 2 to hand over vacant possession of the same. The other reliefs claimed are recovery of vacant possession of A, B and C Schedule properties and for directing the respondent to render accounts of his management of A to D Schedule properties from the year 1975-76 onwards till delivery of possession. Appellants 1 and 3 are husband and wife. The second appellant is their son. The respondent is the son of the first appellant’s aunt. The second defendant in the suit is the mother of the respondent. The case of the appellants is that plaint A and B Schedule lands were allotted to the shares of appellants 1 and 2 respectively under Ex.A-4 partition deed dated 14. 1970. The ‘C’ Schedule properties were purchased by third appellant. The 1st appellant is in enjoyment of ‘D’ Schedule properties as their absolute owner. The respondent was entrusted with the management of all the plaint items with a direction to collect the






























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