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

1993 Supreme(Mad) 84

ABDUL HADI
Periambillai and others – Appellant
Versus
Somayan – Respondent


Advocates:
Ms.P.T. Asha for G.Krishnan, for Appellants. Ms.P.Bagyalakshmi for E.Padmanabhan, for Respondent.

Judgment :

Plaintiffs are the appellants in this second appeal. They lost in both the courts below. The suit is for declaration of plaintiffs’ title and consequential injunction in respect of the suit property or in the alternative for possession thereof. Though in the plaint schedule, initially the suit property is stated to be comprised in S.No. 124/2, Rettakulam Village, measuring 2.42 acres, later in the said schedule, it is mentioned as follows: “P.S. Present enquiry on the part of the plaintiffs reveal that the suit property is included in S.No. 124/2 as well as 124/3 as a result of some recent measurements”.

2. Regarding the relationship between the parties, there is no dispute. One Veeran had two sons, Kathan and Semban. Kathan’s son is the 1st plaintiff and Kathan’s daughter is 3rd plaintiff, 2nd plaintiff is the son of the 1st plaintiff. Semban’s son is Thannah. Thannah’s wife is Kalli (D.W.2), Thannah’s sons are Sivankali and Kathan (junior). Among these, all but Kalli, Kathan (junior) and the plaintiffs, are dead.

3. According to the defendant, he is the purchaser of the suit property under Ex.B-1 dated 110. 1975 from the abovesaid Kathan (junior). The plaint is dated
















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