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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 377

R.SUBRAMANIAN
Veeralakshmi @ Kasthuri – Appellant
Versus
A. K. Chithambarathanu – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :C. Godown, Advocate.
For the Respondents:H. Thayumanaswamy, D. Nallathambi, Advocates.

JUDGMENT :

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside the judgment and decree in A.S.No.52 of 2004, dated 19.11.2004 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Nagercoil, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.211 of 1996, dated 23.07.2003 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Nagercoil.

1. These appeals and revisions arise out of the suits in ejectment and applications filed under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921.

2. Since the questions involved are the same and the suits as well as the applications filed under Section 9 of the Madras City Tenants Protection Act, 1921, have been disposed of by a common judgment, these appeals and revisions are heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

3. The facts, that are necessary for disposal of these appeals and revisions, are as follows:

4. The land owners, namely, respondents in the second appeals and revision petitions, have sued for eviction of the tenants claiming that the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants were let in possession as tenants of the land and they had put up the superstructure. It is the plea of the land owne

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