Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. Karthikeyan, K. Rajasekar, JJ
V. Thiagarajan – Appellant
Versus
K. Paramasivam – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal against denial of specific performance. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. agreement of sale details and advances paid. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. defendants deny agreement and claim subsequent sales. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 4. trial issues, evidence, and witness testimonies. (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 5. trial court upholds agreement but limits to signatories' shares. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. appellant argues karta's authority binds co-parceners. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 7. respondents cite partition and majority co-parceners' rights. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 8. post-partition shares are separate; agreement binds only signatories. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 9. appeal dismissed, trial decree confirmed. (Para 43 , 44) |
JUDGMENT
(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)
The plaintiff in O.S.No.231 of 2008, on the file of the II Additional District Court at Salem aggrieved by that portion of the judgment, wherein, the relief of specific performance was not granted as against the fifth and sixth defendants has filed the present appeal.
2.The suit in O.S. No.231 of 2008 had been filed by the plaintiff/appellant herein, V.Thiag
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
