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

2021 Supreme(Mad) 3501

S.S.SUNDAR
V. Saroja – Appellant
Versus
V. Balasubramania Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : R. Muralidharan
For the Respondents: Guru Raj

ORDER :

S.S. Sundar, J.

1. This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order dated 13.04.2015 made in IA. No. 689/2006 in OS. No. 300/1974 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif, Cuddalore.

2. Brief facts that are necessary for the disposal of this Civil Revision Petition are as follows.

3. The revision petitioners claim that they are the legal heirs of the 2nd defendant in the suit in OS. No. 300/1974. It is stated that the 1st petitioner is the wife and petitioners 2 and 3 are the sons of the late Velayutham Chettiar. It is admitted that one Dhandapani Chettiar filed a suit for partition for his share in the suit property in OS. No. 300/1974 before the Sub Court, Cuddalore. The dismissal of the suit by the Court below was confirmed by this Court in the First Appeal and in the Letters Patent Appeal. It is also admitted that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had reversed the judgment and decree of the Lower Court and held that the plaintiff and Dhandapani Chettiar and defendants 2 to 9 are the only legal heirs of Rajathiammal entitled to succeed to the properties of Rajathiammal.

4. Unfortunately, during the pendency of the appeal before the Apex Court, it is stated that

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