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

2023 Supreme(Mad) 1859

ABDUL QUDDHOSE
Rajeshwaran (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Muthammal – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellants:H. Arumugam, Advocate. For the Respondent:P. Vinoth for S. Prasanth, Advocates.

JUDGMENT

(Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 24.09.2019 passed in A.S.No.55 of 2018 on the file of the Additional District Sessions Court (Fast Track Court), Tenkasi, confirming the judgment and decree dated 22.02.2018 passed in O.S. No.190 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Sub-Court, Tenkasi.)

1. This Second Appeal has been filed challenging the concurrent findings of the courts below. The plaintiff in the suit in O.S.No.190 of 2012 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi, is the appellant herein. After filing of this Second Appeal, the appellant/plaintiff died. The legal heirs of the deceased appellant have been brought on record.

2.In the forthcoming paragraphs, the parties are described as per their litigative status in the suit.

3.The plaintiff had filed the said suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale. The respondent is the defendant in the suit, who was the owner of the suit schedule property in respect of which, the appellant claims that there is an agreement of sale, in which, the respondent had agreed to sell the suit schedule property to him.

4.However, as seen

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