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

1992 Supreme(Mad) 60

SRINIVASAN
Sendamarai Kannan and others – Appellant
Versus
Vinayakam – Respondent


Advocates:
T.Dhanyakumar, for Appellants. T.P.Manoharan, for Respondent.

Judgment :

This second appeal is filed by the defendants. The facts which are not in dispute are as follows:

The property belonged to one Mannadha Pillai, whose sons were Balakrishnan and Muthukrishnan. After the death of Mannadha Pillai, they sold it to Veeraswami on 15. 1892, who is turn sold it to his daughter Kanakavalli, who happened to be the wife of Mannadha Pillai, on 110. 1901. After Kanakavalli’s death, her legal heirs were her daughters Thayammal, Ponnukannu and Swarnathammal. The last daughter died issueless. The property thus belonged to Thayammal and Ponnukannu. Thayammal’s grand daughters are Alamelu and Narayani, while Ponnukannu’s daughters are Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. Janaki Ammal sold her l/4th share to Nachammal alias Andal on 2. 1968. There was a suit for partition in O.S.No.125 of 1969 filed by Alamelu Ammal and Narayani Ammal against Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. It was decreed and the eastern half was allotted to Kuppammal and Janaki Ammal. Kuppammal’s daughter Thulasi Ammal sold her l/4th share to the plaintiff under Ex.A-4, dated 11. 1975 and Andal Ammal sold her 1/4th share to the plaintiff under Ex.A-3, dated 12. 1975. Thus, the plaintiff, claiming the e






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