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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 2144

M.VENUGOPAL
Ramachandran – Appellant
Versus
Sankaraiah Naidu – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner:G. Jeremiah, Advocate. For the Respondent:N. Damodaran, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. The Revision Petitioner/Respondent/Petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 06.03.2007 in E.A.No.50 of 2004 in E.P.No.25 of 2004 in O.S.No.207 of 1991 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Ambattur.

2. The trial Court while passing orders in E.A.No.50 of 2004 in E.P.No.25 of 2004 in O.S.No.207 of 1991 on 06.03.2007 has among other things observed that ...since the Judgment Debtor had cunningly registered the Settlement Deed in favour of her son having full knowledge of the contested Judgment in O.S.No.207 of 1991 and order in E.P.No.142 of 2001, this Court feels that the Settlement Deed is not valid in view of the Sale Deed executed by Judgment Debtor in pursuance to the Decree on 11.06.2001. Further, on perusal of Ex.R1, it is evident that as early as 02.04.1991, notice has been sent under instructions to the petitioner and his Mother viz., the Judgment Debtor to the counsel for the Decree Holder, which shows that the petitioners had full knowledge of the suit. Further, on perusal of Ex.R2, it is the agreement entered into between the deceased Judgment Debtor and the Respondent/Decree Holder wherein the pr




















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