M.EYAPAUL
Mariammal & Another – Appellant
Versus
P. Indirani & Others – Respondent
The 1st and 2nd defendants have preferred the present appeal. The 1st defendant had passed away. Her legal heirs are already on record.
2. The suit is filed for partition and separate possession of 1/7th share in A and B Schedule properties and also for rendition of accounts by the defendants 1 to 3.
3. Theplaintiffs and defendants 3 to 6 are the daughters and the 2nd defendant is the son of the 1st defendant Mariyammal and late P.P.Palanisamy Nadar.
.4. The Plaintiff would contend that P.P.Palanisamy Nadar died intestate on 21. 1986 at Coimbatore Medical College Hospital, Coimbatore. The properties described in A and B Schedules were self-acquired properties of the deceased P.P.Palanisamy Nadar. The plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 6 are in the joint possession of the same. Each of them is entitled to 1/7th share therein. The defendants 1 to 3 are in management of the suit properties for and on behalf of the defendants 1 to 6 and the plaintiff. The B schedule property is the amount in Savings Bank Account in the name of P.P.Palanisamy Nadar lying in Bank of Baroda, Coimbatore who has been shown as 7th defendant. The plaintiff has claimed 1/7th share in the A and B
CHACKO v. MAHADEVAN ((2007) 7 SCC 363)
G.SEKAR v. GEETHA ((2009) 6 SCC 99)
APOLINE DSOUZA v. JOHN DSOUZA ((2007) 7 SCC 225)
ADIVEKKA v. HANAMAVVA KOM VENKATESH ((2007) 7 SCC 91)
Thiagarajan v. Sri Venugopalaswamy B.Koil [(2004) 5 SCC 762 = 2004-3-LW 452]
RAMABAI PADMAKAR PATIL v. RUKMINIBAI VISHNU VEKHANDE ((2003) 8 SCC 537)
ANIL KAK v. SHARADA RAJE ((2008) 7 SCC 695) wherein it has been observed as follows:-
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.