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

2016 Supreme(Mad) 3656

T.RAVINDRAN
Jothiprakasam – Appellant
Versus
Dhanagopal – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. R. Balasubramanian.
For the Respondents: Mr. R. Meenal.

JUDGMENT :

Challenge in this second appeal is made by the defendants 1 & 2 against the judgment and decree dated 29.01.2010 made in A.S.No.8 of 2009 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Neyveli, confirming the judgment and decree dated 27.11.2008 made in O.S.No.23 of 2005 on the file of the District Munsif-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Neyveli.

2. The suit has been laid for declaration and mandatory injunction.

3. The averments contained in the plaint, in brief, are stated as follows:

The suit property belonged to Murugesa Padayachi as his ancestral property and he was employed in NLC and died on 06.06.1982 leaving his wife Saradhambal as his sole heir. They have no issues. The plaintiff's mother Kasiammal is the younger sister of Saradhambal. As Saradhambal and Murugesa Padayachi did not have any issues, they brought up the children of Kasiammal as their own children. After the death of Murugesa Padayachi, Saradhambal expressed her desire to take her sister's son viz., the plaintiff in adoption and Kasiammal was willing to give the plaintiff in adoption to Sardhambal, at that time, the plaintiff's natural father Ilangovan was not alive and accordingly, on 25.08.1988, Kasiammal gave the pl




















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