Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
A.D.MARIA CLETE, J
SMT J.KOUSALYA – Appellant
Versus
M.KOTHANDAN(DIED) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeals arise from the same judgment with common substantial questions. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. plaintiffs sought title based on alleged inefficacy of transaction. (Para 6 , 12 , 14) |
| 3. legal grounding centers on limitation periods and statutory barriers. (Para 17 , 19 , 21 , 26) |
| 4. fiduciary relationships must be distinctly pled to escape statutory bars. (Para 36 , 38 , 42) |
| 5. court restores trial court's decision based on statutory interpretation. (Para 44) |
JUDGMENT
Both these Second Appeals have been filed by the same appellant. She was the first defendant in O.S. No.69 of 2011 and the petitioner in I.A. No.200 of 2012 filed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee. Both appeals arise out of the common judgment and decree dated 29.11.2013 passed by the learned III Additional District Judge, Tiruvallur at Poonamallee, in A.S. No.15 of 2013. By that judgment, the First Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the order dated 10.12.2012 in I.A. No.200 of 2012 in O.S. No.69 of 2011 rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, restored the suit to file for disposal on merits, and dismissed the cross-objection filed by the ap
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
