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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 464

M.SATHYANARAYANAN
Habeebunissa – Appellant
Versus
Kareemunissa – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants : Mr. Inamdar Ameenur Rahman

JUDGMENT :

The defendants 1 to 3 and 5, who lost before the Courts below are the appellants herein.

2. The facts leading to the filing of this Second Appeal, briefly narrated, are as follows:-

[a] The respondents 1 to 6 herein filed OS.No.12313/2009 on the file of the Court of the VI Assistant City Civil Judge, Chennai, against the appellants and another, praying for a preliminary decree, directing the defendants 1 to 4 to partition the suit property bearing Door No.9/19, Strahans Road, 5th Street, Dadeshamkan, Chennai-12, admeasuring to an extent of 1332 sq.ft., standing on the land belongs to Dada Peer Darga, comprised in OS.No.2653, RS.No.2811/30 and CC.No.1270 with the specific boundaries by metes and bounds and allotted 11/88th share to the 1st plaintiff ; 7/88th share to plaintiffs 2, 4 to 6 and 14/88th share to the 3rd plaintiff in the suit property and also prayed for a decree for mesne profits as well as decree for permanent injunction, restraining the defendants, or their men, servants or agents from in any manner interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment in the suit schedule property and also prayed for the cost of the suit.

[b] It is the case of the plaintiff

























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