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

2013 Supreme(Mad) 3985

S.TAMILVANAN
Kousalya Ramakrishnan – Appellant
Versus
B. S. Padmavathy – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the Petitioners:M/s. D. Selvam, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

1. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice and substituted service, there was no representation for the respondent and the respondent was also called absent. However, the order is passed on merits.

2. This revision has been preferred under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order passed in the Check Slip No.216/XXVII/N in Diary No.16 passed in O.S.No.212 of 2008 on the file of the Principal District Court, Thiruvallur.

3. The petitioner herein is the plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.212 of 2008 that was filed by the petitioner against the respondents herein seeking declaration of title and other consequential reliefs. Mr.D.Selvam, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the suit property was sold by way of registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner herein. Learned counsel for the petitioner also drew the attention of this Court to the averments of the plaint and submitted that the entire property was originally owned by the respondents 1 to 7. They sold 50% of the said property in favour of the plaintiff herein through their power of attorney one Daleelullah Khan and another 50% of the property in favour o











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