REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

INDRAJITH Appellant

V/S

DEIVANAYAKA KOUNDER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SUBBARAYA PILLAI ALIAS SUBBARAYA MANTHIRI V. LAKSHMIAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT KAUR V. GARJA SINGH [REFERRED TO]
AMSAVALLI V. INDIRA [REFERRED TO]
MUNIAPPA NAICKER V. BALAKRISHNA NAICKER [REFERRED TO]
PATHIAVINAYAGAM PILLAI V. SIVASANKARAN PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
ATHIAPPA GOUNDER V. A.MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
CHINNAMMAL V. ELUMALAI [REFERRED TO]
P.MARIAMMAL V. PADMANABHAN [REFERRED TO]
PERAMAYEE V. GURUVAYEE [REFERRED TO]
H.SUBBA RAO V. THE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM NADAR V. SUKUMARAN [REFERRED TO]
MAYANDI THEVAR V. ARUMUGHATHEVAR [REFERRED TO]
MALLAPPA GIRIMALLAPPA BETGERI VS. R YELLAPPAGOUDA PATIL [REFERRED TO]
K V NARAYANASWAMI IYER VS. K V RAMAKRISHNA IYER [REFERRED TO]
MUDI GOWDA GOWDAPPA SANKH VS. RAM CHANDRA RAVAGOWUA SANKH [REFERRED TO]
THAKUR BHIM SINGH THAKUR KAN SINGH VS. THAKUR KAN SINGH:THAKUR BHIM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
GAPADIBAI VS. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
KONDIRAM BHIKU KIRDAT VS. KRISHNA BHIKU KIRDAT [REFERRED TO]
K ADIVI NAIDU VS. E DURUVASULU NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
PARKASH CHAND VS. HANS RAJ [REFERRED TO]
HEMANTA KUMAR DAS VS. ALLIANTZ UND STUTTGARTER LIFE INSURANCE CO LTD [REFERRED TO]
OFFICIAL ASSIGNEE OF MADRAS VS. NATESA GRAMANI [REFERRED TO]
APPALASWAMI VS. SURYANARAYANAMURTI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEIVANAYAGA Gounder ("D" in short) is the central figure in the three appeals. One Indrajit claiming to be his son filed O.S. No. 44 of 1982 for partition of his half share in the properties. D was the first defendant. D filed O.S. No. 180 of 1982 for declaration and recovery of possession of certain items of property. D also filed O.S. No. 80 of 1983 for declaration of title and for recovery of possession.

(2.) THE suit properties belonged to one Narayanasamy. He had three sons, D, Kannappan, examined as P.W.2 and another, with whom we are not concerned. THEre was a partition of the joint family properties between D & P.W.2.

(3.) THE twelfth respondent, who also figures as the respondent in Tr.A.S. No. 411 of 1997 filed his written statement stating that one Gangadhara Gounder settled on his mother Padmavathi, the item No. 5 of the "C" schedule under Ex-B104 and she had also accepted the same and is in enjoyment of the said property and that he was not a necessary party to the suit and in any way the suit had to be dismissed, since the appellant is not the legitimate son of D.A.S. No. 410/85 arises out of this suit.

Click here to view full judgment.

INDRAJITH Vs. DEIVANAYAKA KOUNDER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address