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

1964 Supreme(Mad) 373

K.SRINIVASAN
Thailammal – Appellant
Versus
Batumalai – Respondent


Advocates:
R. Gopalaswami Ayyangar and K.N. Balasubramanyam, for Appellant.
T.R. Mani, for Respondent.

ORDER.-

One Sepoy Chidambara Udayar was last owner of the suit property He left India for Malaya in 1930. Before leaving he mortgaged the property in favour of the defendant’s husband. At the same time, he granted a lease in favour of Karuppanna Udayar, who was his divided paternal uncle. He died in Malaya in 1932 without any issues. The plaintiff claiming to be the son of an undivided brother of Sepoy Chidambara Udayar came to India in 1958. He ascertained that Muthammal, the widow of Karuppanna Udayar, and her son, had sold the suit property to the husband of the first defendant, the mortgagee. The sale was in discharge of the mortgage executed by Sepoy Chidambara Udayar. The plaintiff, claiming that Muthammal was incompetent to sell the property, pleaded that the conveyance was void and not binding upon him. He alleged further that the sale was in breach of confidence and faith and that he came to know of the fraud only on his return to India, and on such averments claimed that the suit was not barred by limitation.

The defendant contended that the plaintiff is not the son of the brother of Sepoy Chidambara Udayar. It was alleged that the defendant had prescribed for title to the


















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