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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 875

S.ASHOK KUMAR
Jothi and another – Appellant
Versus
Kumaravel – Respondent


Advocates:
Mr. P. Valliappan, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr. P. Jagadeesan, Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :

1. Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Nammakkal, filed by the revision petitioners/plaintiffs under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C. seeking permission to amend the Plaint, this revision is filed.

2. The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(i) According to the revision petitioners, they are sisters and the respondent is their brother. They are the children of one Palaniappa Gounder. The suit properties are the ancestral properties of their father, acquired under registered Partition Deed dated 20.6.1967, entered into with his father and brothers. The said Palaniappa Gounder died on 112. 2004. The mother of the petitioners pre-deceased their father Palaniappa Gounder. The petitioners are entitled to a share in the suit properties, which a re ancestral in character. The respondent is also entitled to a share. since the respondent was not amenable for an amicable partition and was claiming exclusive right on the basis of an alleged settlement in his favour, the petitioners filed the Suit for partition in O.S. No.33 of 2005 on the file of the Subordinate Judge’s Court at Namakkal on 2. 2005 claiming 1/6th share each.

(ii) According to the revisi








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