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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 2301

RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
Rajaraman – Appellant
Versus
Arumugam – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :A. Muthukumar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.45 of 2010, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, dated 28.04.2011, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2006, by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Parangipettai, dated 28.09.2010.)

1. Notice of motion alone was ordered in this Second Appeal.

2. The unsuccessful plaintiff is the appellant herein.

3. This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.45 of 2010, by the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, dated 28.04.2011, wherein, the learned Judge has confirmed the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.5 of 2006, by the District Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Parangipettai, dated 28.09.2010.

4. For the sake of convenience the parties are referred to as per their litigative status before the trial Court.

5. Brief facts of the case are as follows:

    (a) The plaintiff has filed a suit in O.S.No.5 of 2006, before the learned Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram, for specific performance of Ex.A2/Sale Agreement. The first defendant, who is the vendor, original owner of the property has fil

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