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

1967 Supreme(Mad) 66

T.RAMAPRASADA RAO
M. Shahul Hameed – Appellant
Versus
Kanda Iyer – Respondent


Advocates:
P. Veeraraghavan, for Petitioner.
K. Sarvabhauman and R. Gandhi, for the Additional Government Pleader, for Respondents.

Order.-

The first defendant is the petitioner in this Civil Revision Petition. The plaintiff filed a suit for a declaration that he is entitled as of right to be in possession of the suit property by virtue of an assignment which he secured under deed dated 23rd September, 1963 from one Chockalinga Chettiar with whom admittedly the first defendant entered into a registered agreement of lease on 5th September, 1963. After entering into such a lease agreement with Chockalinga Chettiar, the first defendant purports to put the second defendant in possession of the property.. The plaintiff, who by then has secured a right to obtain possession of the property files this suit but valued the same for purposes of Court-fee and jurisdiction under section 43 (d) of the Court-fees Act read with section 25 (d) of the said Act. After the written statement was filed, he (the plaintiff) sought to amend the plaint by substituting section 42 (c) instead of section 43 (d) as originally stated by him in the plaint. The learned District Munsif after hearing all the contention of the parties allowed the amendment. The main question, that is now argued before me by the first defendant who has come up to t








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