Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.MARIA CLETE, MR. S.S. SUNDAR, JJ
S.Nirmala – Appellant
Versus
Shanthi Harikrishnan – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of appeal and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. argument on cross-examination priorities. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. legal observations on admissibility of evidence. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 4. procedure regarding cross-examination and implications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 5. outcome of the appeal and the imposed costs. (Para 15) |
JUDGMENT
[Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.,]
This appeal is preferred against the order dated 26.07.2024 passed in A.No.1912 of 2024 in C.S..No.252 of 1996 by the learned single Judge refusing to eschew the evidence of cross examination of DW1 by the 9th defendant in the suit.
2. The original plaintiff filed suit C.S.No.252 of 1996 for partition and mesne profits in respect of the properties left by E.K.Pattabirama Reddiar paternal grandfather of the plaintiff and great grandfather of the original 1st and 2nd defendants. The first defendant is the plaintiff's deceased brother's son and 2nd defendant is the plaintiff's deceased sister's daughter. After the demise of the original plaintiff and defendants, their legal heirs are brought on record.
3. The appellants are arrayed as defendants 3, 5 to 7 in C.S.No.2
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
