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

2001 Supreme(Mad) 488

P.SATHASIVAM, P.THANGAVEL
Noorunissaalias Pichamma – Appellant
Versus
Rahaman Bi – Respondent


JUDGMENT

P. Thangavel, J.

The appeals in A.S.No.228 of 1990 and Cross-objection No.116 of 1995 in A.S.No.228 of 1990, A.S.No.619 of 1990 and A.S.No.759 of 1990 are filed against the judgment and decree dated 1.11.1989 and made in O.S.No.56 of 1986 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam, by plaintiff, third defendant, 6th defendant and 9th defendant respectively.

2. The facts that are necessary for disposal of these appeals and cross objection are as follows:

Mohammed Ali Maraicair has married the first defendant and has given birth to defendants 2 to 6, his sons and plaintiff and defendants 7 to 9 his daughters. Mohammed Ali Maraicair was carrying on business in steel under the name and style of “Pondy Steel Agencies” at Anna Salai, Pondicherry and in brass vessels under the name and style of “Moula Sahib Stores” in Big Market, Pondicherry by investing about Rs.2,00,000 in the abovesaid shops. The properties described in plaint ‘A’, ‘B’, ‘C’, ‘D’ and ‘E’ Schedules belonged to Mohammed Ali Maraicair. Mohammed Ali Maraicair died on 30.5.1984 leaving the abovesaid properties and the plaintiff and defendants as his heirs. The plaintiff and defendants are entitled to the a































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