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

2022 Supreme(Mad) 3413

P. T. ASHA
Marimuthu – Appellant
Versus
Karthikeyan – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:B. Mohan, Advocate. For the Respondents: S. Thangavel, Caveators.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 16.03.2021 made in A.S.No.38 of 2020 on the file of the learned I Additional Sub Judge of Erode, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.02.2020 made in O.S.No.29 of 2012 on the file of the learned Principal District Munsif of Erode.)

1. The defendant who has lost before the Courts below is the appellant before this Court.

2. The facts in brief are herein narrated below describing the parties in the same ranking as before the Trial Court.

(i) The plaintiffs had filed a suit seeking to have themselves declared as the absolute owners of the suit schedule property, directing the defendants to deliver vacant possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs and for a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from putting up any new construction.

(ii) It is the case of the plaintiffs that the larger extent of the suit property situate in Nanjai Uthukuli Village belonged to their ancestors. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' father, Ramalinga Gounder, who succeeded to the property, during his life time, had executed a Will dated 23.02.2005 bequeathing the sui

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