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

1996 Supreme(Mad) 1099

N.V.BALASUBRAMANIAN
Pitchakaran @ Balakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
Parvathi Ammal – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. M.N. Muthukumaran, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. G. Rajan, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. The civil revision petition is directed against the order of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai in I.A. No. 1017 of 1995 in O.S. NO. 411 of 1987 refusing to allow an application filed by the plaintiff for the amendment of the plaint under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

.2. The civil revision petitioner is the plaintiff and the respondent is the defendant. The plaintiff filed the suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff’s possession and enjoyment of the suit property situate at Perumbakkam village in Survey No. 129/2A of an extent of 2.55 acres. The case of the plaintiff is that the property bearing Survey No. 129/2 of an extent of 5.09 acres in the said village belonged to one Natesan and his brother Oomayan, both sons of one Mottayan. After the death of Oomayan, his two sons, Saman and Subramani sold their half share in the said property to the plaintiff’s father Perumal by a sale deed dated 7. 1972. They claimed that they are the owners of the suit property by virtue of a sale deed dated 7. 1972. The defendant in her written statement traced the title of the sui










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