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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 32

P.JYOTHIMANI
Chinnammal & Another – Appellant
Versus
Manickam @ Sellappan & Others – Respondent


Advocates:
For the Petitioners:N. Manokaran, Advocate. For the Respondents:

Judgment :-

The plaintiffs are the revision petitioners and the revision is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The revision arises from the order passed by the Trial Court in I.A.No.64 of 2006 in O.S.No.37 of 2005 filed by the plaintiffs seeking for an amendment to the plaint under order 6 Rule 17 r/w 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was dismissed by the order dated 13.02.2006.

2. The first defendant Manickam @ Sellapan is the husband of the first plaintiff Chinnammal. The second defendant in the suit is the father-in-law of the first plaintiff and father of the first defendant and the third defendant is the brother of the first defendant. There was a partition in the family of Periyanna gounder, namely, the second defendant on 110. 1985 and there was no division by metes and bounds. The further case of the plaintiff is that the first defendant was married to the first plaintiff and they had no issues for 2 years and when the first plaintiff was conceived afterwards, at the advise of astrologers, the first defendant has compelled the first plaintiff to make abortion on certain surmises and it was in those circumstances the first plaintiff was compelled












































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