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

2019 Supreme(Mad) 1093

ABDUL QUDDHOSE
V. Gandhimathi – Appellant
Versus
G. Thiyagarajan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:C. Deivasigamani, Advocate.
For the Respondent:V.V. Sathya, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India, to struck off the proceedings in E.P.No.76 of 2010 on the file of IInd Additional Subordinate Judge of Coimbatore.)

The instant Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to strike off the proceedings in E.P.No.76 of 2010, on the file of the learned II Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

2. Heard Mr.C. Deivasigamani, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr.V.V.Sathya, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The only point for consideration in this revision is whether a decree for recovery of possession in respect of plaintiff's absolute and exclusive property is executable without obtaining a final decree, when the decree granted covers two reliefs (a) decree for recovery of possession in respect of plaintiff's absolute and exclusive property and (b) preliminary decree of partition in respect of a joint family property. The decree was granted in favour of the respondents in O.S.No.56 of 1983 on 29.07.1986 for two separate reliefs. One is a preliminary decree and the other relief granted is a decree for recovery of possession against the petit


















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