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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 1812

A. A. NAKKIRAN
Jothi Ramalingam – Appellant
Versus
Chokkalingam – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:R. Gururaj, Advocate. For the Respondents:S. Balaji, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: This Appeal Suit has been filed, under Section 96 and Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 13.07.2012 made in O.S.No.133 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District cum Sessions Court, Cuddalore.)

1. This Appeal Suit has been filed challenging the judgment and decree, dated 13.07.2012, made in O.S.No.133 of 2011 on the file of the I Additional District cum Sessions Court, Cuddalore.

2. The appellant is the plaintiff and the respondents are the defendants in the said suit in O.S.No.133 of 2011. For the sake of convenience, the parties hereinafter are referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. The suit was filed seeking preliminary decree of partition and separate possession of Plaintiff's 1/3 share in the suit 'B' schedule property, to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to divide the suit 'B' schedule property by metes and bounds into 3 equal shares and to allot one such share to the Plaintiff and restrain the defendants, their men and agents by a decree of permanent injunction, from in any manner interfering with plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit 'D' schedule property and for costs.

4. The c

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