Back
R. VIJAYAKUMAR
Laskhmana Pillai (died) – Appellant
Versus
Alankaravel – Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of C.P.C, against the judgment and decree dated 03.03.1994 made in A.S.No.23 of 1992 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Tenkasi preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1991 made in O.S.No.371 of 1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi.)
1. The defendants 1, 3 and 7 are the appellants
2. The plaintiffs filed O.S.No.371 of 1985 before the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi for declaration of title over the first schedule property and for a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to execute a decree in O.S.No.88 of 1975 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tenkasi. The plaintiffs further prayed for declaration of title over item Nos.2 to 5 of the suit schedule properties and for recovery of possession from the defendants. The trial Court decreed the suit with regard to item Nos.1 and 5 as prayed for. As against the disallowed portion of the decree, the plaintiffs filed A.S.No.23 of 1992 before Subordinate Court, Tenkasi. As against the decree over item No.1, the first defendant filed a cross appeal. The First Appellate Court confirmed the decree with regard to the second and fourth items
The main legal point established in the judgment is that Chellammal acquired vested interests in the suit schedule property on her birth, making her the absolute owner. This legal principle influence....
The plaintiff must prove his own title to succeed in a suit for declaration of title, as established by the will's provisions.
In property disputes, the plaintiff must prove clear title to succeed, and the interpretation of wills must reflect the testator's intentions as expressed in the document.
Title and ownership claims in property disputes necessitate credible documentation; statutory presumptions apply to documents over 30 years old.
Point of law: A daughter of a coparcener by birth becomes a coparcener in her own right in the same manner as the son. She has the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she....
The First Appellate Court is required to provide a reasoned judgment addressing all issues, and failure to do so constitutes a ground for setting aside its decision.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
