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

2008 Supreme(Mad) 3199

A.C.ARUMUGAPERUMAL ADITYAN
Palanisamy – Appellant
Versus
Muthusamy Gounder – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :N. Manokaran, Advocate.
For the Respondent:T. Murugamanickam, Advocate

Judgment :-

1. This second appeal has been preferred against the decree and judgment in A.S.No.108 of 1997 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Erode, which had arisen out of the decree and judgment in O.S.No.190 of 1996 on the file of the Court of Principal District Munsif, Erode. The plaintiff in O.S.No.190 of 1996 in whose favour the learned trial Judge had passed a decree, but has lost his case in appeal before the first appellate Court in A.S.No.108 of 1997, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff had filed the suit for bare injunction against the defendants in respect of the plaint schedule property.

2.The averments in the plaint relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal sans irrelevant particulars are as follows:-

2(a) The plaint schedule properties are situated at Nanjanapuram village, Erode Taluk. The defendants 1 to 3 are brothers and sons of one Appachi Gounder. The 4th defendant and the said Appachi Gounder are brothers. The defendants 5 to 7 are the sons of 4th defendant. The grand-father of the plaintiff is one Pongianna Gounder. Likewise, the grand-father of the defendants 1 to 3 and 5 to 7 and father of the 4th defendant is one Marappa Gounder.





























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