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

2015 Supreme(Mad) 3554

D.HARI PARANTHAMAN
Kaleeswaran – Appellant
Versus
Uma – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : D. Ravichander
For the Respondent: K.A. Vimal Kumar

ORDER :

D. Hari Paranthaman, J.

1. The revision petitioner is the 10th defendant in O.S. No. 93 of 2007 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Villupuram. The respondent is the plaintiff therein. It is a partition suit. The plaintiff claims 6/15th share in the suit schedule property. The revision petitioner purchased item No. 33 of the suit schedule property and hence, he was impleaded as a defendant. The revision petitioner filed a written statement and in para 6 of the written statement, it was pleaded that the Will dated 22.10.2001 was executed by Varadarajalu in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and the revision petitioner purchased the property from defendants 2 and 3.

2. According to the revision petitioner, he found that the date of the Will was wrongly mentioned in the written statement as 22.10.2001 instead of 4.4.2002. Hence, he filed an application in I.A. No. 416 of 2014 in O.S. No. 93 of 2007 under Order 6 Rule 17 C.P.C., to amend the date of the Will as 4.4.2002 in the place of 22.10.2001, wherever it occurs.

3. But, the Trial Court, by order dated 7.2.2015, rejected the said application. Hence, this revision petition.

4. When the matter came up on 18.8.2015, this
















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