Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
Narayanasami – Appellant
Versus
Soundarapandian – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the revision petitions were filed regarding the specific performance decree. (Para 1 , 2 , 4) |
| 2. arguments presented focused on procedural challenges and jurisdictional issues. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. the court provided observations on the merits of the petitioners' claims and upheld the executing court's findings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. final ruling dismissed the revision petitions. (Para 11) |
COMMON ORDER
C.RP.No.682 of 2026 has been filed by the judgment debtors/defendants challenging the order in E.A.No.4 of 2025 in E.P.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the District Judge, Nagapattinam.
2.CRP.No.686 of 2026 has been filed challenging the decreetal order in E.A.No.3 of 2024 in E.P.No.7 of 2020 on the file of the District Judge, Nagapattinam.
3.I have heard Mr.R.Muruga Bharathi, learned counsel for the revision petitioners/judgment debtors and Mr.G.Veerapathiran, learned counsel for the respondent/decree holder.
4.Mr.R.Muruga Bharathi, learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners would state that the respondent has filed a suit for specific performance through his son, who was the power of attorney agent of the respondent. The sale consideration was fixed at Rs.12,14,400
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
