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

2002 Supreme(Mad) 94

A.S.VENKATACHALA MOORTHY
Palaniammal – Appellant
Versus
V. K. Ramanathan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr.R.Subramanian, Advocate for Petitioner. Mr.K.Yamunan, Advocate for Respondent No.2.

Judgment :

1. Plaintiff in O.S.1 17 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif, Namakkal filed an application in I.A.No.413 of 2001 under Order 6 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of Code of Civil Procedure. The learned District Munsif dismissed the said application by an order dated 14.9.2001. The aggrieved plaintiff has preferred the above revision petition against the said order.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.117 of 2001 on the file of District Munsif Court, Namakkal contending that she took the suit property on lease from the first defendant for the period from 1.1.1979 to 31.12.1998 and as per the terms of the agreement, the plaintiff was permitted to put up super structure. The claim of the plaintiff is that she put up certain building and shops in the suit property and got electricity connection also and that apart, the Municipal assessment too stands in the name of the plaintiff’s husband by name Palaniyandi. The plaintiff produced property tax receipts and also water tax receipts. The further claim of the plaintiff is that even after the lease period, she would be entitled to be in possession of the property by virtue of the provisions of the Tamil Nadu City Te
































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