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

2011 Supreme(Mad) 2680

G.RAJASURIA
T. M. Sornam – Appellant
Versus
Kamalam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants:N. Manokaran, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :-

1. This Second appeal is focussed by the original plaintiffs 2 and 3, animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011 passed in A.S.No.179 of 2008 (A.S.No.16 of 2004-Sub Court, Namakkal, A.S.No.3 of 2007-District Court, Namakkal) by the learned Subordinate Judge, Tiruchengode, in partly allowing the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Tiruchengode in O.S.No.280 of 1996. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

2. Compendiously and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Second Appeal would run thus:

(a) The appellants/plaintiffs 2 and 3 and also the deceased plaintiff, namely T.C.A.Manickam, filed the suit seeking permanent injunction as against Kamalam/R1 and the Commissioner/R2 on various grounds, virtually contending that the plaintiffs are entitled to the suit property as absolute owners by virtue of the codicil executed by their propositus, namely Pachiammal.

(b) The trial Court felt that the plaintiffs should file a regular suit for declaration of the title and for injunction and after holding so it simply granted three m













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