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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 1764

G.RAJASURIA
Mohanavathy – Appellant
Versus
Punyakodi – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant:M.S. Subramanian, Advocate.

Judgment :-

1. This Second appeal is focussed animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 02.11.1998 passed in A.S.No.83 of 1997 by the Sub Court, Tiruvallur, thereby confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.10.1996 in O.S.No.150 of 1986 passed by the District Munsif Court, Tiruvallur.

2. The parties are referred to hereunder according to their litigative status and ranking before the trial Court.

3. Despite printing the name of the respondent, there is no representation on his behalf.

4. In a few broad strokes, the picture that conjures up in my mind from the averments as found set out in the plaint, could summarily and succinctly be set out thus:

(a) The first plaintiff is the wife of the second defendant and mother of the first defendant and the second plaintiff is the daughter of the first plaintiff. They belong to scheduled caste community. The Government of Tamil Nadu through its Collector, Chengalput, conferred house site pattas to each of the defendants as well as the first plaintiff in respect of the property described in the schedule of the plaint as under:

"Schedule of Property

House site in No.82, Punnapattu village, Tiruvallur Sub District and Tiruvallur Talu




























































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