REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

DORAIBABU Appellant

V/S

K. MASILAMANI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DHIYAN SINGH VS. JUGAL KISHORE [REFERRED TO]
SHANKAR SITARAM SONTAKKE VS. BALKRISHNA SITARAM SONTAKKE [REFERRED TO]
SAILENDRA NARAYAN BHANJA DEO VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
GUMMALAPURA TAGGINA MATADA KOTTURUSWAMI VS. SETRA VEERAWA [REFERRED TO]
T Y R SUBBU CHETTYS FAMILY CHARITIES VS. M RAGNAVA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
R B S S MUNNALAL VS. S S RAJKUMAR [REFERRED TO]
RAM CHARAN DAS VS. GIRIJA NANDINI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
MANGAL SINGH VS. RATTNO DEAD [REFERRED TO]
SETHBADRI PRASAD VS. KANSO DEVI [REFERRED TO]
KRISHNA BRHARILAL VS. GULABCHAND [REFERRED TO]
EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO MANOHARBAHAL COLLIERY CALCUTTA VS. K N MISHRA [REFERRED TO]
V TULASAMMA VS. SESHA REDDY [REFERRED TO]
MOVVA SUBBA RAO VS. MOVVA KRISHNA PRASADAM [REFERRED TO]
RANGASWAMI NAICKER VS. CHINNAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
VASANTHARAO AMMANNAMMA VS. VIJIAPURAPU VENKATA KODANDA RAO PANTHULU [REFERRED TO]
RAI BISHUNATH PRASAD SINGH VS. RANI CHANDIKA PRASAD KUMARI [REFERRED TO]
RANGASAMI GOUNDEN VS. NACHIAPPA GOUNDEN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE appeals against the decrees in C.S. No. 313 of 1976 and C.S. No. 222 of 1977 arise out of a common judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court. They have been heard together. Common arguments have been advanced both on behalf of the appellants and the respondents. Since most of the questions involved in the two suits and appeals are common, they are disposed of together.

(2.) C.S. No. 313 of 1976 was filed for a declaration of the plaintiff's title under a settlement deed dated 12.6.1967 and recovery of possession against 13 defendants of whom defendants 5 to 13 are tenants. C.S. No. 222 of 1977 had been filed by the first defendant in C.S. No. 313 of 1976 against the 9th defendant in C.S. No. 313 of 1976. Originally C.S. No. 222 of 1977 was filed on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras as O.S. No. 9874 of 1975 for recovery of arrears of rent.

(3.) DEFENDANTS 6, 9, 10, 12 and 13 filed separate written statements to the effect that they are tenants and entitled to remain in possession and that the plaintiff cannot recover possession from them though he could claim rents if his claim of title was upheld.

Click here to view full judgment.

DORAIBABU Vs. K MASILAMANI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address