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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 3640

S.PALANIVELU
M. Antony Samy Suresh – Appellant
Versus
S. Joseph Rajan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:S. Meenakshi Sundaram, Advocate.
For the Respondents:S. Natarajan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. The present respondents are the plaintiffs in O.S.No.407 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tirunelveli. There are four respondents and the first respondent is the power agent of 2 to 4 respondents who are plaintiffs in the suit. The revision petitioner is the defendant in the suit. The suit was filed by the power of attorney, the first plaintiff, for declaration that the sale deed dated 25.02.2010 is null and void and for consequential injunction. Pending trial of the suit, the first respondent filed an application under Order 1, Rule 8 r/w Section 151 CPC praying the Court to permit him to sue in representative capacity of all the purchasers of the properties who have purchased from him (first plaintiff) which originally belonged to Lakshmi Ammal from whom he (first plaintiff) got power of attorney for selling the lands.

2. In the affidavit, it is stated by the first plaintiff that on 16.07.1996 he got power of attorney from the owners of the properties and sold plots to 2 to 4 plaintiffs and others. He has sold the lands in plots more than 80%, for whom he is supervising the properties since the defendant disturbed the properties belonging to 2 to 4 plai


















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