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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 2044

S. KANNAMMAL
B. Gopu – Appellant
Versus
A. Punniakotti – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:A. Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondents:R1, M/s. M. Christella, R2 to R5, A. Jenasenan, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.62 of 2008 dated 30.06.2011 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.1, Poonamallee.)

1. The plaintiff, in O.S.No.62 of 2008, having suffered a decree before the trial court, has come forward with this appeal.

2. The plaintiff has filed the suit for partition. According to the plaintiff, his father Balu Naicker and the 1st defendant namely A.Punniakotti are brothers. It is stated that the plaintiff's father and the 1st defendant have purchased the suit property jointly by means of a registered sale deed dated 15.10.1956. Therefore, his father is entitled to half share in the suit property and another half share belongs to the 1st defendant. However, the 1st defendant, inspite of demands made by the plaintiff, has refused to part with half share in the suit property. Even otherwise on 23.12.2005, the mother of the plaintiff by name Saradha had executed a settlement deed in favour of the plaintiff, by virtue of which the plaintiff is entitled to half share belonged to his father and for the remaining half share,

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