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

2010 Supreme(Mad) 2282

G.RAJASURIA
Shanmugam – Appellant
Versus
Arthanari – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:N. Manokaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent: -------

Judgment :-

1. Inveighing the order dated 8. 2009 passed in REP No.56 of 2008 in O.S.N.17 of 2005 by the Subordinate Court, Tiruchengode. (R.E.P.No.23 of 2007 in O.S.No.17 of 2005-Sub-Court, Namakkal)., this civil revision petition is focused.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. A summation and summarisation of the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this revision petition would run thus:

The revision petitioner herein by way of executing the decree in O.S.No.17 of 2005 filed the REP.No.56 of 2008 with the following prayer:

"to execute a sale deed in favour of the petitioner under Order XXI Rule 34 of C.P.C.on behalf of the respondent/J.Ds.register the same and thereby order to deliver the possession of the properties detailed in the schedule hereunder or alternatively to direct the respondent/J.D.to pay the advance amount Rs.2,00,000/- and damages of Rs.40,000/- with interest at the rate 9% for p.a.from the date of suit and realisation."

Whereupon the Court ordered notice and it was sent to the respondent. The respondent, after entering appearance filed the counter contending that along with the notice the draft sale deed was not s














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