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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 976

PRABHA SRIDEVAN
Kannaiyan and others – Appellant
Versus
Periamalai – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
A. Muthukar, for Appellants.
P. Veeraraghavan, for Respondent.

Judgment :-

1. The appellants plaint was rejected underO.7, Rule 11, C.P.C. as barred by res judicata.

2. The respondent filed a suit against the appellants for partition and separate possession. Preliminary decree was passed on 30.4.1985. Thereafter, the respondent applied for passing of final decree on 9.4.1986. The appellants entered appearance on 16.8.1986 and filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree along with an application to condone the delay of 470 delays. According to them, even before the passing of preliminary decree, there was a Panchayat and the respondent had agreed to receive Rs.2,000 in lieu of his claim and also promised to withdraw the suit. The appellants under the impression that the suit would be withdrawn, had not appeared in Court on the date when preliminary decree was passed. Only when they received notice of the final decree proceedings, they came to know of the fraud committed by the respondent. So they filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. But there was a delay of 470 days which had to be condoned. The trial Court condoned the delay. But in revision filed against that in C.R.P. No.1632 of 1988, this Court had set aside the or

















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