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

2014 Supreme(Mad) 3063

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Thangavel – Appellant
Versus
R. Maragatham – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Kannnan, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R1, N. Manokaran, Advocate, RR2 to R4, given up.

Judgment :

1. The third defendant, in a suit for permanent injunction, has projected this instant Second Appeal against the judgment and decree dated 16.09.2005 passed by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, in A.S. No. 58 of 2005 wherein and by which the judgment and decree dated 07.01.2005 made in O.S. No. 301 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Coimbatore, was reversed allowing the First Appeal at the instance of the plaintiff.

2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property situate in S. No. 116/1B1 in Veerakeralam Village, along with the other properties, originally belonged to the first defendant. Defendants 2 and 4 are first defendant's daughters while the third defendant is the husband of the second defendant. It is stated that when the first defendant decided to sell the properties, she gave a Power of Attorney dated 09.8.1999 in favour of the second defendant, who, also on the strength of the same, sold the property on 28.8.2000 in favour of the plaintiff and put her in possession. It is further contended by the plaintiff that when the sale was effected, the boundaries were demarcated with boundary stones and possession was given t

























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