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
This Second Appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated February 22, 2019 passed in A.S.No.5 of 2018 by the 'Subordinate Court, Udumalpet' ['First Appellate Court' for brevity] reversing the Judgment and Decree dated February 14, 2018 passed in O.S.No.66 of 2012 by the 'District Munsif, Udumalpet' ['Trial Court' for brevity].
2. For the sake of convenience, hereinafter, the parties will be referred to as per their array in the Original Suit.
FACTUAL MATRIX
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.
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
