Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B.BALAJI, J
R.Ravikumar – Appellant
Versus
R.Nagaraj (Deceased) – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of property ownership and dispute (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. court's reasoning on evidence and claims (Para 10 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 22) |
| 3. arguments presented by both parties in appeals (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 16) |
| 4. established legal requirement for challenging deeds (Para 23 , 24 , 28 , 30 , 31) |
| 5. final dismissal of appeals with costs (Para 34) |
COMMON JUDGMENT
A.S.No.448 of 2002 arises out of the judgment and decree in O.S.No.250 of 2015, on the file of the II Additional District and Sessions Judge, Tiruvallur. This appeal is at the instance of the 1st defendant, challenging the decree of the trial Court.
2.A.S.No.496 of 2002 is at the instance of the legal representatives of the plaintiff in the very same suit, non-suiting the plaintiff to the relief of partition and permanent injunction. Thus, it can be seen that the 1st defendant was sailing with the plaintiff before the trial Court and hence, he is also aggrieved by the dismissal of the suit for partition.
3.I have heard Mr.S.Mukunth, Senior Counsel for Mr.K.Balaji, learned counsel for the appellant in A.S.No.448 of 2022 and 1st respondent in A.S.No.496 of 2022; Mr.S.Anbu Raja, learned counsel for
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
