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

2017 Supreme(Mad) 3698

M.SATHYANARAYANAN
MEHARAJ – Appellant
Versus
HURMATHUTH NISHA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. N. Manokaran, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

M. SATHYANARAYANAN, J.

1. The plaintiff in OS.No.47/2012 on the file of the Court of Subordinate Judge, Sathyamangalam, is the appellant herein.

2. The appellant/plaintiff filed the said suit praying for the relief of partition of the suit property along with the land and superstructure bearing new Door No.343, Kotuveerampalayam Village, Sathyamangalam Bazaar, Sathyamangalam, into three equal shares and to allot one such share to the plaintiff, declaring the alleged forged document of a Sale Deed bearing Document No.982/1973 dated 18.05.1973 as null and void and also to award cost.

3. The 3rd defendant has filed the written statement refuting the allegations and she also filed IA.No.342 of 2012 under Order 7, Rule 11(a)(b) and under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for rejection of the plaint and the said application, after contest, came to be ordered vide judgment and decree 31.08.2015. The plaintiff aggrieved by the judgment and decree, rejecting the plaint, filed an appeal in AS.No.13 of 2016 on the file of the Court of III Additional District and Sessions Judge, Gopichettipalayam, and the Lower Appellate Court, vide judgment and decree dated 28.02.2017,














































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