M.DURAISWAMY
Muthukrishna Gounder – Appellant
Versus
Gowri – Respondent
1. The above Second Appeal arises against the judgment and decree in A.S.No.31 of 2008 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Mathuranthagam, reversing the judgment and decree in O.S.No.184 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Mathuranthagam.
2. The plaintiff is the appellant and the respondents were the defendants in the suit. The plaintiff filed the suit in O.S.No.184 of 2004 for specific performance and for permanent injunction.
3. The brief case of the plaintiff is as follows:
According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff and one Perumal Gounder are brothers and the suit property and other properties are ancestral properties. The father of the plaintiff settled the suit property in favour of the plaintiff and the first defendant on 30.04.1959. The plaintiff and Perumal Gounder purchased part of the suit property jointly. There was oral division of the suit property and the suit property was allotted to Perumal Gounder. Since the said Perumal Gounder was unable to cultivate the land, the plaintiff alone was cultivating the suit property and paying waram till last crop. Perumal Gounder agreed to sell the suit property to the plaintiff for a Sale Consideration of
Swarnam Ramachandran v. Aravacode Chakungal Jayapalan [(2004) 8 SCC 689]
K.S. Vidyanadam v. Vairavan [(1997) 3 SCC 1]
Veerayee Ammal v. Seeni Ammal [(2002) 1 SCC 134] it was observed: (SCC p. 140
Chand Rani v. Kamal Rani [(1993) 1 SCC 519]
(v) 1997 (I) CTC 360 [Seeni Ammal Vs. Veerayee Ammal]
2010 (3) CTC 297 [Jugraj Vs. P.Sankaran and others]
R.C. Chandiok v. Chuni Lal Sabharwal [(1970) 3 SCC 140]
(2003) 1 M.L.J. 694 [M.Ramalingam (Died) and others Vs. V.Subramanyam (Died) and others]
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.