REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

MANICKAM Appellant

V/S

CHINNASAMY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KHUNNILAL V. GOVIND KRISHNA NARAIN [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEO GHOSE V. ANTARIYANI DAS [REFERRED TO]
AUDESH SINGH V. SIRTAJI KUAR [REFERRED TO]
JAVER CHAND VS. PUKHRAJ SURANA [REFERRED TO]
SAIT TARAJEE KHIMCHAND VS. VELAMARTI SATYAM ALIAS SATTEYYA [REFERRED TO]
BIPIN SHANTILAL PANCHAL VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
PONNAMMAL AMMAL VS. MODERN STORES [REFERRED TO]
VASUDEVA MALLAN VS. KRISHNA KAMMATH [REFERRED TO]
DHRUBA SAHU DEAD AND AFTER HIM NALUMONI SAHU VS. PARAMANANDA SAHU [REFERRED TO]
GITA DEVI SHAH VS. CHANDRA MONI KARNANI [REFERRED TO]
A C LAKSHMIPATHY VS. A M CHAKRAPANI REDDIAR [REFERRED TO]
BALAKRISHNAN VS. CHANDRASEKHARAN [REFERRED TO]
P Shanmugasamy VS. Kausalya alias Krishnaveni [REFERRED TO]
R DEIVANAI AMMAL VS. MEENAKSHI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
M CHINNAPPAN VS. M RANGANATHAN [REFERRED TO]
VINCENT LOURDHENATHAN DOMINIQUE VS. JOSEPHINE SYLA DOMINIQUE [REFERRED TO]
K VEERABADRAN VS. K VENUGOPAL [REFERRED TO]
KALAIVANI ALIAS DEVASENA VS. J RAMU [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRESHWAR SINGH VS. RAMCHANDRA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
PRABHU DAYAL VS. SUWA LAL [REFERRED TO]
MT MAHADEI KUNWAR VS. PADARATH CHAUBE [REFERRED TO]
KALI CHARAN VS. MOHAMMAD JAMIL [REFERRED TO]
Mannalal VS. S.P. Sitambernath [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Revision Petitioner/Petitioner/Plaintiff has filed the instant Civil Revision Petition as against the order dated 14.10.2009 in I. A. No. 1425 of 2009 in O. S. No. 628 of 2003 passed by the Learned III Additional District Munsif, Kallakurichi.

(2.) The trial Court, while passing orders in I. A. No. 1425 of 2009 in O. S. No. 628 of 2003 dated 14.10.2009, has, among other things, observed that 'the Ex. B. 14-Partition Agreement/Partition Deed has been marked subject to admissibility and relevancy and the nature of document would be decided at the time of disposal of the suit and resultantly, dismissed the application without costs. '

(3.) In the affidavit in I. A. No. 1425 of 2009 has averred that the Partition Deed is not a true one and further, in their family, no partition like that has taken place and that the said document has been a created one and also the same has not been registered.

Click here to view full judgment.

MANICKAM Vs. CHINNASAMY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address