PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA
Pandarachamy – Appellant
Versus
Thirumalai Ammal – Respondent
1. The plaintiff, who is the appellant, is the purchaser of the suit property in the capacity of a mortgagee. The suit has been filed for declaration and injunction.
2. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property originally belonged to one Sadayappa Konar, having acquired the same by his self-earnings. He had left a Will, dated 07.12.1994 and the same came into force on his death on 02.02.1995. As per the said Will, the suit property was bequeathed in favour of his daughter Ramathal children viz., Manimegalai, Thilagavathi and Arunpandian. The father of the legatees was appointed as guardian. Accordingly, after the Will came into force, the said beneficiaries have been in enjoyment of the property and subsequently, they mortgaged the suit property on 07.05.2008 with the plaintiff. In discharge of the mortgage, the suit property was sold in favour of mortgagee/plaintiff herein by virtue of the sale deed dated 20.04.2009. The plaintiff has been in possession of the property in his own capacity from the date of purchase. The second defendant had made a request to the plaintiff to sell the eastern side of the suit property which was refused by him. Enraged by the same,
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.