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

2024 Supreme(Mad) 885

K. MURALI SHANKAR
Ayyavoo Pandithan (Died) – Appellant
Versus
Naina Mohamed (Died) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. D. Senthil.
For the Caveator : Mr. M. Mohamed Ajeesdheen.

ORDER :

K. Murali Shankar, J.

[PRAYER : This Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 151 of Civil Procedure Code, to set aside the fair and decreetal order dated 15.09.2023 made in E.P.No.68 of 2018 in O.S.No.89 of 1978 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur and allow the above civil revision petition.]

The Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed in E.P.No.68 of 2018 in O.S.No.89 of 1978 dated 15.09.2023 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Melur, ordering arrest and detention of the revision petitioner/judgment debtor in the civil prison and for removal of temporary construction made in the B schedule property and for handing over the vacant possession of the same.

2. Originally, the respondent's father Naina Mohamed has filed the above suit claiming the reliefs of declaration and permanent injunction, that the revision petitioner's father Ayyavoo Pandithan has filed his written statement defending the suit and that the learned District Munsif, after full trial, has decreed the suit vide judgment dated 03.05.1980 declaring that the plaintiff Naina Mohamed is entitled to the suit property measuring 22 feet East-West and 23 feet 3 inches North-Sout

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    Judicial Analysis

    D.Thiagarajan vs Kumbakonam Thuluva Vellalar Sangam - 2025 0 Supreme(Mad) 2297: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment (e.g., followed, distinguished, overruled) are present. The summary describes the holding ("execution of a decree... valid within 12 years, excluding interim stay periods") without referencing subsequent case treatment.

    Adcon Electronics Private LTD. VS Daulat - 2001 7 Supreme 134: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment are present. The summary describes the holding ("suit simpliciter for specific performance... cannot be treated as a suit for land") without referencing subsequent case treatment.

    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