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

2000 Supreme(Mad) 164

S.S.SUBRAMANI
Syed Mohamed – Appellant
Versus
Nabisath Beevi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr.S.S. Mathivanan, Advocate for Petitioners.
Mr. Ananthakrishnan Nair, Advocate for Respondents.

Judgment :

1. Plaintiffs in O.S. No. 60 of 1997 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Padmanabhapuram, are the revision petitioners. 2. Plaintiffs filed a suit for a decree of permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants and their men from evicting the plaintiffs from the scheduled property and for other reliefs. It is their case that from the year 1980, they are residing in the scheduled property as absolute owners. First defendant is the sister of the 2nd plaintiff and, the 2nd defendant is her husband and they have no manner of right or title over the scheduled properly. While so on 8.3.1997, the defendants tried to evict the plaintiff from the scheduled property by force after making some false claim. Plaintiffs apprehend that the defendants may forcibly evict them and they have filed a suit for the reliefs stated above. 3. In the written statement, they denied the right of the plaintiff, but also filed a counter-claim that on the basis of their title, they are entitled to recover the property from the plaintiffs. According to them, 2nd plaintiff’s father had gifted the plaint schedule property in favour of the 1st defendant by a registered gift deed date




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