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

2005 Supreme(Mad) 963

R.BALASUBRAMANIAN, PRABHA SRIDEVAN
N. K. Yahayagani Co. – Appellant
Versus
Regional Director – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. J. Josephat, Advocate for Appellant. Ms. Jayakumari. Advocate for Respondent.

Judgment :-

1. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 31.3.1993 passed in A.S. No. 230 of 1992 by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore reversing the judgment and decree dated 12.12.1991 made in O.S. No. 825 of 1989 by the District Munsif, Cuddalore, the first defendant has filed the above second appeal.

2. The averments made in the plaint are as follows:

a. The suit property mentioned in ‘B’ schedule originally belonged to Govindasamy Naidu and his two brothers. In an oral partition, ‘B’ schedule property was allotted to the said Govindasamy Naidu and he was in possession and enjoyment of the same till his death. After the death of Govindasamy, his only son Ramamurthy, who is the husband of the plaintiff, was in possession and enjoyment or the same. The said Ramamurtny also died three years prior to the date of filing of the suit leaving behind his wife and five children. After the death of Ramamurthy, the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property. The suit property is a vacant site and in a portion of that property, there is a hut, in which the plaintiff has been residing from the date of her marriage, with the knowledge of the defendants and


























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