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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1285

R. VIJAYAKUMAR
Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
Visalakshi – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:B. Jameel Arasu, Advocate. For the Respondent:P. Ganapathi Subramanian, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.03.2021 made in A.S.No.56 of 2018 on the file of the learned Additional Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.15 of 2007 dated 05.08.2016 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai and allow the second appeal.)

1. The defendant is the appellant.

2. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.15 of 2007 before the District Munsif Court, Pudukkottai for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court. The plaintiff filed A.S.No.56 of 2018 before the Additional Subordinate Court, Pudukkottai. The learned Subordinate Judge was pleased to allow the appeal and decreed the suit as prayed for. As against the same, the defendant has filed the above second appeal.

3. The plaintiff had contended that the suit schedule property and other adjacent properties are the ancestral properties of one Vasudevan, S/o.Arumugapathar. The said Vasedevan was allotted the suit schedule property as per the partition decree in O.S.No.82 of 1950 on the file of Sub Court, Tanjore. According to the plaintiff, the defend

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