Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Honourable A.D.MARIA CLETE
K.S.PALANISAMY – Appellant
Versus
PAVATHIAMMAL – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of pleadings, trial findings on exclusive possession. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7) |
| 2. appellant/respondent arguments on ouster, limitation. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 3. ouster proved by hostile exclusive possession, knowledge. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. suit bad for non-joinder of necessary co-sharers. (Para 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 5. partial partition bars suit given omitted properties. (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 6. appeal dismissed, rights extinguished by limitation. (Para 26 , 27) |
J U D G M E N T
1.This Appeal Suit is filed by plaintiff challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 01.09.2018 passed in O.S. No.247 of 2013 on the file of the III Additional District - cum- Sessions Court, Erode at Gobichettipalayam.
2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to in this judgment in the same rank as they were arrayed before the Trial Court
3. The plaintiff’s case, in brief, is that the suit properties are the ‘B’ Schedule properties which fell to the share of Chinnappagounder, the plaintiff’s maternal grandfather, under a family Partition Deed dated 10.07.1956. According to the plaintiff, after the death of Chinnappagounder intestate in 1963, his daugh
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
