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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 3341

C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
Valsalam Nadar – Appellant
Versus
Mary Kanagam – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.N. Thampi, Maria Vinola, J. Anandha Valli, Niranjan S. Kumar.

JUDGMENT

1. S.A. No. 1098 of 1994 had been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 27.06.1994, made in A.S. No. 24 of 1993 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai reversing the judgment and decree dated 23.03.1993 made in O.S. No. 468 of 1985 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Kuzhithurai.

2. The defendant in the suit was the appellant in the second appeal. The suit was filed for partition. It had been dismissed by the trial Court. The first appellate Court reversed the findings of the trial Court. The second appeal had been admitted on the following substantial questions of law:

"(1) Whether the lower Court is right in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to 55 cents, though the sale deed is for lesser extent?

(2) Whether the lower Court is correct in holding that the plaintiff is entitled to larger extent when the sale deed described specified boundaries, within which he purchased the property?"

3. The second appeal was argued at length by the learned Counsel for the appellant and for the respondent. Thereafter, by judgment dated 12.01.2012, Honourable Mr. Justice N. Paul Vasanthakumar (as his Lordship then was), held as follows:

"The Lower Appellate


















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