Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.Balaji, J
V.Pandiyan – Appellant
Versus
Muthusamy – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of suit facts, proceedings, and lower court dismissals (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 9) |
| 2. no substantial question; appeal dismissed (Para 2 , 14) |
| 3. parties' arguments on evidence and title (Para 10 , 11) |
| 4. court analysis rejects title and possession claims (Para 13) |
JUDGMENT
The plaintiff, in a suit for declaration and for permanent injunction which has been dismissed by the trial Court and confirmed by the first Appellate Court, is the appellant in the present second appeal.
2. I have heard Mr.N.Kamesh, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.G.Sridharan, learned counsel for the respondent.
3. The second appeal has not been admitted as on date and I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the entire records, including the judgments of the Courts below, as well as the pleadings before the trial Court.
4. The case of the plaintiff is that the suit property, amongst other properties are ancestral properties of his father Veeramalai Gounder. The said Veeramalai Gounder executed a settlement deed on 08.11.1984 in favour of the plaintiff. As the plaintiff was minor, one Kaniya Gounder was appointed as the guardian of the plaintiff. The plaint
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
