REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

VIJAYALAKSHMI Appellant

V/S

SULOCHANA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CHENNAPRAGADA V. THE SECRETARY OF STATE [REFERRED TO]
PERIAKARUPPAN ALIAS PALANI,MINOR THROUGH HIS COUSIN SISTER AND GUARDIAN KARUPPAYEE AND OTHERS V. MADURA KAJIMARTHERU PALLIVASAL THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
M.RAMALINGAM V. N.THANGAVELU [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR V. GHULAM RASOOL [REFERRED TO]
RAMA AIYAR AND OTHERS V. NARAYANASAMI AIYAR AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
J.NARAYANA RAO V. Y.G.BASAVARAYAPPA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
NATESA THEVAN V. DISTRICT BOARD OF THANJUR [REFERRED TO]
RAMAN ITTIYATHI V.PAPPY BHASKARAN [REFERRED TO]
PANDARA SANNADHI V. ANANDHA KRISHNASWAMI,NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
KASIPATHI V. E.SUBBA RAO PAWER [REFERRED TO]
DAYA RAMA VS. SHVAM SUNDARI [REFERRED TO]
R S MADDANAPPA DECEASED AFTER HIM VS. CHANDRAMMA [REFERRED TO]
ARJUN LAL GUPTA VS. MRIGANKA MOHAN SUR [REFERRED TO]
B L SREEDHAR VS. K M MUNIREDDY [REFERRED TO]
DWARAMPUDI NAGARATNAMBA VS. KUNUKU RAMAYYA [REFERRED TO]
R B BHARATHA CHARYULU VS. R B ALIVELU MANGA THAYARU [REFERRED TO]
RAMAJI BATANJI VS. MANOHAR CHINTAMAN [REFERRED TO]
M A RAJU VS. ANNAIAH [REFERRED TO]
K S CHIDAMBARAM VS. GOMATHI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant/Respondent/Defendant has filed this Second Appeal as against the Judgment and Decree dated 23.08.1995 in A.S. No. 6 of 1994 on the file of Subordinate Court, Poonamallee.

(2.) The First Appellate Court viz., the Learned Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee, while passing the Judgment in A.S. No. 6 of 1994, dated 23.08.1995 has among other things observed that 'the Appellant/Respondent/Defendant has to vacate the land in question and that the Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to the recovery of the possession since the Appellant/Respondent/Defendant has made improvements by way of putting the superstructure on the land in question and that the Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff has to pay the value of the house to the Appellant/Respondent/Defendant etc., and moreover, opined that the Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration of the suit property and that she is entitled to the recovery of the possession and further directed the Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff to pay the compensation for the superstructure besides directing him to deposit into the Court below the value of the building as on date of filing of Execution Proceedings and take possession of the suit site as well as the building and thereby allowed the Appeal and dismissed the Cross Appeal.

(3.) Before the trial Court, in the main suit 1 to 4 Issues have been framed for adjudication.

Click here to view full judgment.

VIJAYALAKSHMI Vs. SULOCHANA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address