Back
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
R.Sakthivel, J
K.MUTHUSAMY – Appellant
Versus
P.THANGAVEL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. suit properties and some other properties (Para 3) |
| 2. the plaintiff purchased the suit a schedule property (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. the 2009 suit filed by the 2 nd defendant (Para 9) |
| 4. there is no such pathway available (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. the pleadings has to be read comprehensively (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 6. the plaintiff has proved the existence (Para 16) |
| 7. resultantly, the second appeal is allowed (Para 17) |
JUDGMENT
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
3. The Suit Properties and some other properties including those in Survey Nos.47 48, 49 and 50 of Pukkulum Village originally belonged to one Andimuthu Gounder, who had two children, namely daughter – Nagarathinam and son – Ramalingam. Andimuthu Gounder filed a Suit for partition in ‘O.S.No.250 of 1946 on the file of Trial Court’ [‘1946 Suit’ for short] in respect of Suit Properties herein and some other properties on August 31, 1946, against his son and daughter. During the pendency of the Suit, he executed a registered Settlement Deed in favour of his daughter in respect of the Suit Properties herein and some other properties. Prel
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
