REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

R. Muthulakshmi Appellant

V/S

VALLIAMMAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

KAMALAMMAL VS. DEVAGI AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
ANANDAN (DECEASED) AND OTHERS VS. KANNAIYAN AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SAHU MADHO DAS VS. MUKAND RAM [REFERRED TO]
KANAKARATHANAMMAL VS. V S LOGANATHA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
POTTI LAKSHMI PERUMALLU VS. POTTI KRISHNAVENAMMA [REFERRED TO]
TEK BAHADUR BHUJIL VS. DEBT SINGH BHUJIL [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN DAS VS. GIRIJA NANDINI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
MATURI PULLALAH VS. MATURI NARASIMHAM [REFERRED TO]
SYED SHAH GHULAM GHOUSE MOHIUDDIN VS. SYED SHAH AHMED MOHIUDDIN KAMISUL QUADRI DIED [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA BRHARILAL VS. GULABCHAND [REFERRED TO]
S SHANMUGAM PILLAI AND OFHERS VS. K SHANMUGAM PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
SULOCHANAAMMA VS. NARAYANAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
SRIDEVI VS. JAYARAJA SHETTY [REFERRED TO]
HARI SHANKAR SINGHANIA VS. GAUR HARI SINGHANIA [REFERRED TO]
GANESHI VS. ASHOK [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMIAMMAL VS. C P NANJAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
ANDISAMY CHETTIAR VS. SUBBURAJ CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
NAGABHUSHANAMMAL (D) BY LRS. VS. C. CHANDIKESWARALINGAM [REFERRED TO]
SATISH UKEY VS. DEVENDRA GANGADHARRAO FADNAVIS [REFERRED TO]
P. SURESH VS. R. RANGASAMY AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These second appeals are preferred by the plaintiff. She has laid a suit for partition of three items of properties. The suit was partially decreed by the trial court, challenging which decree the first defendant's branch (defendants 8 to 12) preferred a first appeal in A.S.I56 of 2003, in which the plaintiff had preferred her cross objection. The first appellate court allowed the appeal and dismissed the cross objection, which implied that the suit was dismissed in its entirety. Aggrieved by the said decrees of the first appellate court, the plaintiff has approached this court with these appeals. Parties would be referred to by their rank in the trial court.

(2.) The Plaintiff s case:

(3.) The trial Court framed as many as nine issues. Critical among them are the first issue, which pertains to ascertaining the character of the suit properties - whether they are the self acquisitions of Chenimalai Gounder or ancestral properties in his hands; the 6th issue relates to the alleged family settlement where under the children of the Nachammal had alleged to have relinquished their right in the property for Rs. 15,000/-. The 5th issue relates to the genuineness of the Will of Valliammal dated 19-09-1985, marked Ext.B-38. The Additional second issue framed on 04-12-2001 relates to the need to implead the purchasers of item 1.

Click here to view full judgment.

R. MUTHULAKSHMI Vs. VALLIAMMAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address