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

2025 Supreme(Mad) 2210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice V.SIVAGNANAM
K.V.Alagesan – Appellant
Versus
K.V.Ramakrishnan – Respondent


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : M/s.Chithra Sampath & Senior counsel for Mr.R.Nalliyappan
For the Respondent: Mr.S.Senthil, Mr.D.Ganesh Raj

JUDGMENT :

Aggrieved over the Judgement and Decree dated 11.10.2013 passed in O.S.Nos.115 of 2007 & 43 of 2009 by the Additional District Court, Namakkal, the plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2007 and the defendant in O.S.No.43 of 2009 has preferred the appeal suits.

2. The plaintiff in O.S.No.115 of 2007 and the defendant in O.S.No.43 of 2009 on the file of the Additional District Court, Namakkal, is the appellant in both the appeal suits. The defendants in O.S.No.115 of 2007 and the plaintiffs in O.S.No.43 of 2009 are the respondents herein.

3. O.S.No.43 of 2009 was transferred to District Court, Namakkal from the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal and it was assigned to Additional District Judge, Namakkal.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the trial Court in O.S.No.115 of 2007.

5. Suits filed for declaration of title, delivery of possession and for permanent injunction.

6. The plaintiff's case, in brief, in O.S.No.115 of 2007 is as follows:

(a). The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are sons of one M.K.Venkatachalam. The properties which are described in Schedule "A" belonged to the plaintiff under three sale deeds, one dated 20.09.19

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

None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. The only case mentioned is "Prabakaran v. S." with a reference to Gyatri Prasad v. ... but there is no indication in the provided text that any of these cases have been overruled or criticized in subsequent decisions. Therefore, based on the provided information, no cases are identified as bad law.

Followed / Cited: The mention of "Prabakaran v. S." and the reference to Gyatri Prasad v. ... suggests these cases are being cited as precedents or relevant authority. However, there is no explicit indication they are being followed or distinguished in the provided excerpt.

No explicit language indicating that any case has been distinguished, criticized, questioned, or otherwise treated positively or negatively is present in the list.

The treatment of "The plaintiff and defendants 1 to 3 are sons of one M.K.Venkatachalam. ... Prabakaran v. S. ... To cite only a few, in Gyatri Prasad v." is ambiguous. The excerpt is incomplete and does not specify whether these cases have been overruled, criticized, or followed. Without additional context, it is unclear how these cases have been treated in subsequent jurisprudence.

**Source :** K.V.ALAGESAN vs K.V.RAMAKRISHNAN - Madras

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