Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
M. Govindaraj, J
K. Lakshmi – Appellant
Versus
M. Palanisamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. nature of the petitions and orders challenged. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments about unauthorized alienation and fraud. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. background leading to the issuance of ayan patta. (Para 9 , 10 , 12) |
| 4. importance of jurisdiction and binding nature of decrees. (Para 14 , 15 , 18) |
| 5. final rulings on land assignment rights. (Para 24 , 28 , 29) |
| 6. conclusions on civil revision petitions. (Para 30 , 31 , 33 , 34) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
CRP.(NPD) No.721 of 2012
This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order passed by the Execution Court in E.A.No.276 of 2007 in E.P.No.115 of 1999 refusing to declare the decree passed by the trial Court as nullity and unenforceable against the petitioner.
2. The petitioner filed an application in EA.No.276 of 2007 in E.P.No.115 of 1999 before the Execution Court under Section 47 of CPC to declare the decree the decree passed in O.S.No.615 of 1998 as nullity.
3. According to the petitioner, the property which is sought to be executed and taken possession is a land specifically allotted to Depressed Clause. The Decree Holder/respondent being a caste Hindu is not entitled to claim title over the same as it violates the conditions
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
