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

1998 Supreme(Mad) 1182

S.S.SUBRAMANI
R. Thulasidoss – Appellant
Versus
Rani alias Rajalakshmi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:T.R. Rajaraman, Advocate.
For the Respondents:Ms.P. Baghyalakshmi, S. Rajasekar, Advocates.

Judgment :-

1. The decree-holder in R.C.O.P.No.16 of 1989 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Karur is the revision petitioner in both the revisions. The above revision petitions are filed under Art.227 of the Constitution of India.

2. One Govindarajulu had 8 sons and one daughter. His wife is Muthialu Ammal. The sons are G.Ramachandran, G.Venkatesan, G.Udayavar, G.Ramanujam, G.Leelakrishnan, G.Umakandan alias Munusamy, G.Baskar, G.Santhanam and G.Jayaraman. His daughter is Krishnaveni. The first respondent in this revision is the daughter of Krishnaveni.

3. The decree-holder is the adopted son of the said G.Ramachandran. The decree-holder filed revision petition against respondents 2 to 5 and obtained an order of eviction. The same was confirmed in appeal and revision also. When the proceedings was initiated for eviction, the first respondent herein filed an obstruction petition under Sec.47 of Code of Civil Procedure to declare that the eviction decree is invalid and is not liable to be executed. In this connection, it is worthwhile to note that the respondents 3 to 5 in the eviction petition are none other than the children of Udayavar who is one of the sons of Govindarajul














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