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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 190

N.SATHISH KUMAR
Christhudas – Appellant
Versus
Rosili – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :J. Anandhavalli, Advocate
For the Respondents:K. Vamanan, N. Edwin Jayakumaran, Advocates

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2005 passed in A.S.No.92 of 2002 by the Subordinate Court, Kuzhithurai confirming the judgment and decree dated 05.08.2002 passed in O.S.No.61 of 1983 by the Principal District Munsiff, Kuzhithurai).

1. Aggrieved over the concurrent finding of the Courts below dismissing the suit for redemption, the present second appeal is filed.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to herein, as per their rank before the Trial Court.

3. The brief facts, leading to the filing of this Appeal Suit, are as follows:- The suit properties and other properties originally belonged to one Padmanabhapillai and Narayana Pillai, Panthakkal house Kurumathoor. On 21.12.1903, the said Padmanabhapillai and Narayana Pillai mortgaged the property to Unmayudayan Pethiru, Unmayudayan Masilamony and Kaliannamuthu. The said mortgage was followed by 2 purakkadams dated 24.02.1912 and 13.02.1909, respectively executed by the jenmies. The entire jenmom right over the plaint schedule property was purchased by Rajamma under two sale deeds dated 12.12.119 and 25.04.1119 M

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