B.RAJENDRAN
Raju Spinning Mills P Ltd by its Director – Appellant
Versus
The Tahsildar Srivilliputhur Virudhunagar District – Respondent
The petitioner in the writ petitions as well as the second respondent are one and the same, besides, the issues involved in the writ petitions are also common, hence, by consent of the counsel for both sides, the writ petitions are disposed of by this common order.
2.The case of the petitioner in WP No. 23436 of 2002 is that the petitioner had purchased nearly 7.69 acres of land in Survey No.148/1, 2, 3, and 4 of Padikkasuvaithanpatti Village of Srivilliputhur Taluk. The vendors of the petitioners have prescribed title by virtue of earlier sale transaction, which took place from the year 1942 and 1943. In the Chitta and Adangal extract, the petitioners name was shown as owner and necessary name transfer has already been effected in the patta. Earlier to this, it was in the name of the petitioners predecessor in title. All the revenue records are in the name of the petitioners predecessor in title. The petitioner is the bonafide purchaser for a VALUABLEconsideration. The petitioner has obtained loan from IDBI bank and other banks and invested more than Rs.9 crores for putting up construction, purchase of machineries and now running mill in the land. The property was also
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.