Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.B. Balaji, J
Mariappan – Appellant
Versus
Paulraj – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. historical context of the property dispute and framing of substantial questions of law. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. parties' contentions regarding fraud, burden of proof, power of attorney, and validity of documentation. (Para 5 , 6 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 3. procedural history of trial and appellate court findings. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. court analytical assessment of the sanctity of registered documents and lack of evidence regarding fraud. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 5. application of legal principles regarding limitation, non-est factum, and necessity of challenging void deeds. (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 6. final appellate decision and restoration of trial court decree. (Para 41) |
JUDGMENT
The plaintiffs in a suit for declaration of title and for recovery of possession and also for declaration of documents to be null and void and not binding on the plaintiffs, are the appellants herein, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the First Appellate Court.
2. I have heard Mr.H.Arumugam, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr.Nissar Ahmed, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.M.R.Seenivasan,
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
