SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2005 Supreme(Mad) 1215

R.BANUMATHI
Chandra & Others – Appellant
Versus
Ranganathan – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:For the Petitioners:V. Manisekaran, Advocate. For the Respondent:(Respondent died) Steps not yet taken.

Judgment :-

This Revision arises out of the Order of Second Additional District Munsif (in charge of I Additional District Munsif), Thirukovilur in I.A.No. 533 of 2000 in O.S.No.998 of 1991 dated 9.10.2000 allowing the application under Order VIII, Rule 9 C.P.C. on payment of costs of Rs.500/- thereby ordering receipt of additional written statement. Plaintiff is the Revision Petitioner.

2. O.S.No. 998 of 1991:- Plaintiffs are daughters and son of D1 – Sadaiyandi. The Plaintiffs have filed this suit to cancel the Sale Deed dated 27.11.1986 executed by D1 in favour of D2. According to the Plaintiffs, the recitals in the said Sale Deed relating to the consideration and antecedent debts are not true. The promissory note and the other debts mentioned there on are not existing debts and the recitals have been incorporated to show as if the Sale Deed has been executed for consideration. Alleging that the Sale Deed is not binding on them and seeking to cancel the Sale Deed, the Plaintiffs have filed the suit for partition claiming their ¾ share in the suit properties.

3. The Second Defendant filed the written statement contending that D1 had purchased the property in the name of his wife Ma














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top