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) 3423

M.VENUGOPAL
P. S. Veerappa – Appellant
Versus
Palaniammal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T. Murugamanickam, Advocate.
For the Respondents: No Appearance.

JUDGMENT :-

1. The Civil Revision Petitioner/Defendant has filed the instant civil revision petition as against the order dated 28.10.2009 in I.A.No.488 of 2009 in O.S.No.3198 of 2004 passed by the Learned District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate, Paramathi.

2. The trial court while passing the order in I.A.No.488 of 2009, dated 28.10.2009 has among other things observed that the Revision Petitioner has filed the I.A.No.488 of 2009 not in a proper fashion and moreover in the affidavit in I.A., the Revision Petitioner/Defendant has prayed for summoning the Will dated 8.5.1998 bearing document No.12 entered in Book No.3, Volume-51, Page Nos.47 to 51 from the Sub Registrar Office, Paramathi and that he has not spelt out as to whether the settlement deed dated 27.5.1968 is in whose possession and who has produced the same before the court, etc. Also, the trial court has observed that the Revision Petitioner has not produced the 27.5.1968 settlement deed and as such the plea that the same has to be compared with that of the Will dated 8.5.1998 cannot be accepted. Further, the petitioner has not filed any application for appointment of an Advocate Commissioner and he has not informed his r




















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