S.MANIKUMAR
M. Nagarajan – Appellant
Versus
V. M. Nagammal – Respondent
1. Mother-in-law has filed the suit against the son-in-law, for a judgment and decree, to declare that she is the only heir of her daughter Muniyendra. Upon consideration of oral and documentary evidence let in by both parties, by judgment and decree in O.S. No. 700 of 2000, the learned Principal District Munsif, Gudiyatham, granted a decree, as prayed for. Aggrieved by the same, the defendant/son-in-law preferred an appeal in A.S. No. 7 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham. The lower appellate Court has confirmed the decision, stated supra. Assailing the concurrent judgments and decrees, the defendant has preferred this second appeal.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are addressed as per their litigative status in the lower Court.
3. The detailed pleadings are as follows:
According to the plaintiff, her daughter Muniyendra was employed as a Typist in Excise department in the office of the Tahsildar, at Gudiyatham. Her husband/defendant murdered Muniyendra and her children on 17.1.1983, at Gudiyatham. The defendant was tried and sentenced to death by the Learned District Sessions Judge, North Arcot at Vellore, and on appeal, it was modified to i
Chinnappappal v. Rajammal (2002) 1 MLJ 66 [Para 19(e)]
Jodh Singh v. Union of India AIR 1980 SC 2081 [Para 28]
Nakchhed Singh v. Bijai Bahadur Singh AIR 1953 All 759 [Para 19(f)]
Smt Violet Issaac v. Union of India (UOI) (1991) 1 SCC 725 [Paras 27
Minoti v. Sushil Mohansingh Malik AIR 1982 Bom 68 [Para 17]
Saravanabhava v. Sellammal (1972) 2 MLJ 49 [Para 19(b)]
Shri Rattan Lal v. Shri Vardesh Chander AIR 1976 SC 588 [Para 20]
Smt. Janak Rani Chadha v. State (NCT of Delhi) AIR 2007 Del 107 [Para 19(g)]
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.