Back
G.RAJASURIA
M. Periyakaruppan – Appellant
Versus
Nachiyappan – Respondent
This Civil Revision Petition is focussed as against the fair and decreetal order dated 30.08.2006 passed in I.A.No.189 of 2006 in O.S.No.104 of 2005 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Karaikudi.
2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners. Despite printing the name of the learned counsel for the respondents, no one appeared.
3. The parties are referred to herein according to the litigative status before the trial Court.
4. A resume of facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition would run thus:
The plaintiffs two in number filed the suit in O.S.No.104 of 2005 as against the two defendants, who are the revisions petitioners herein, for declaration that the suit property belongs to them and for consequential injunction, based on the consent letter given by their father, the oral partition, which took place before Panchayatars, and which was subsequently got reduced in the form of the impugned document dated 23.02.1987.
5. The plaintiffs, in paragraph No.3 of their affidavit in I.A.No.189 of 2006 filed before the Principal District Munsif Court, Karaikudi, averred that the impugned document was filed
None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. The single case law entry references a judgment of a learned Single Judge in the case of M. Periyakaruppan and others v. Nachiyappan and others (reported in 2008-4-L.W. 165) and mentions that the judgment refers to Section 33 of the Stamp Act. There is no indication within this excerpt that this case has been overruled or criticized in subsequent decisions. Therefore, based on the provided information, no cases are identified as bad law.
Followed / Cited:
The case of M. Periyakaruppan and others v. Nachiyappan and others appears to be cited as a reference or authority in subsequent judgments, as indicated by the phrase "In yet another judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of M. Periyakaruppan...". This suggests that the case has been considered relevant and possibly followed or relied upon in later decisions. However, without explicit language indicating that it was followed or distinguished, this remains an inference.
Neutral / No treatment indicated:
The excerpt does not specify whether the case was overruled, distinguished, criticized, or followed. It simply reports a judgment and its reference to Section 33 of the Stamp Act. As such, it can be categorized as a neutral case in terms of treatment, pending further information.
The treatment of the case of M. Periyakaruppan and others v. Nachiyappan and others is not explicitly stated beyond its mention. Without additional context or subsequent case references, it is uncertain whether it has been overruled, criticized, or followed. The lack of explicit treatment indicators makes this case's status ambiguous based solely on the provided excerpt.
**Source :** Amertham VS Thannace - Madras
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
