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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 2938

S.MANIKUMAR, M.VENUGOPAL
P. Rajesh – Appellant
Versus
V. Shanthi – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For Appellant : Mr. S.Jayachandran
For Respondent: Mrs. A.Sumathy

JUDGMENT

M.VENUGOPAL, J.

The Appellant/Respondent/Plaintiff has filed the instant Original Side Appeal as against the order dated 17.11.2014 in A.No.2156 of 2014 in C.S.No.650 of 2012 passed by the Learned Single Judge in allowing the application and consequently, rejecting the plaint, the Learned Single Judge while passing the order dated 17.11.2014 in A.No.2156 of 2014 in C.S.650 of 2012 at para 16 had inter-alia observed as follows:

“16. ...... when the question of law is such that and there is no cause of action disclosed, the plaint cannot be sustained. No reason is forthcoming as to why the plaintiff has come up with the third suit on the very same cause of action even without disclosing the same. From the above facts, excepting the sale deed dated 29.12.2008, the plaintiff does not get any other right. The plaintiff's father who had been a builder, had already ended up the battle with the defendant which has come to the Court up to the state of First Appeal and reached finality. While so, the plaintiff, who is the son of the builder, knowing very well about the factual position, has come up with the present suit only with an ulterior motive to harass the defendant abusing


























































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