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

2009 Supreme(Mad) 3963

S.TAMILVANAN
Jeevatarhinam – Appellant
Versus
Marimuthu & Others – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Subramanian, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R. Sunil Kumar, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. The second appeal has been preferred against the Judgment and Decree dated 31.07.2000 passed in A.S.No.76 of 1999 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Pondicherry, confirming the Judgment and Decree, dated 25.09.1998 made in O.S.No.190 of 1996 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif, Pondicherry.

2. The defendant before the trial court is the appellant herein. The suit was filed by the respondents / plaintiffs before the trial court, seeking a decree for redemption of usufructory mortgage, dated 25.09.1974 and the suit was decreed as prayed for.

3. By Judgment and Decree, dated 25.09.1998, the trial court granted preliminary decree, which reads as follows :

"1. That the defendant do pay into the court on or before the day of .... or any later date up to which the time of payment may be extended by the court the said sum of Rs.4,000/- with interest at....% per annum on Rs.4,000/-from the date of plaint till date of payment.

2. That on such payment and on payment thereafter before such date as the court may fix of such amount as the court may adjudge due in respect of such costs of the suit and such costs, charges and expenses as may be payable under Ru


































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