REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAJAMMAL Appellant

V/S

PAPPAYEE AMMAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

VENKATACHALAM CHETTY V. GOVINDASWAMI NAICKER [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEVA IYER V. SANKARASUBRAMANIA IYER [REFERRED TO]
VENKATA NARASIMHA APPA ROW V. PARTHASARATHY APPA ROW [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMI NAIDU V. VELLAPPAN [REFERRED TO]
RAJAMANI V. ANTIAMMAL [REFERRED TO]
MADRAS V. C.THIRUVENKATA MUDALIAR,MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
SARADAMBAL AMMAL V. NATESA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
ALPHONESE,A AND ANOTHER V. VINCENT AND 7OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
APPADURAI & OTHERS V. MALLINATHA NAINAR (DIED) &OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
PONNUCHAMI SERVAI V. BALASUBRAMANIAN ALIAS SURESH [REFERRED TO]
SADASIVAM AND 6 OTHERS V. SUBRAMANIA PILLAI AND 8 OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
MUHAMMAD ABDUL GHANI V. FAKHR JAHAN BEGUM [REFERRED TO]
SELLAYYA PILLAI V. DEVARAYA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMI NAIDU V. GOPALAKRISHNA NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
IGNATIA BRITO V. T.P.REGO [REFERRED TO]
PEAREY LAL VS. RAMESHWAR DAS [REFERRED TO]
NAMBURI BASAVASUBRAHMANYAM VS. ALAPATI HYMAVATHI [REFERRED TO]
KOTHANDARAJA PILLAI VS. PIRAMADESAM VILLAGE VISWAKULA STREET SWAMY VISWA VINAYAKAR KOVIL [REFERRED TO]
POONGAVANAM VS. PERUMAL PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
P S DEIVAPRASAD ALIAS P S VEERABADRAN VS. P D BALAJI AND ELEVEN [REFERRED TO]
AROKIASWAMY ODAYAR DECD VS. RY NAGOJI RAMACHANDRA GHATGAI RAO SABB [REFERRED TO]
(GARAPATI) GANGARAJU VS. PENDYALA SOMANNA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The second defendant who suffered a decree before the Courts below has filed this Second Appeal.

(2.) The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit in O.S.No.387/1985 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Namakkal, for a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the suit property, after the lifetime of the 1st defendant and for possession of the same from the 2nd defendant. Even according to the plaintiff, as stated in the plaint filed in O.S.No.387/1985 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Namakkal, she is a concubine of the first defendant and with that relationship they lived together. So the 1st defendant has executed a settlement deed under Ex.A4, dated 25.2.1980 in favour of the plaintiff. On that basis, the plaintiff has come forward with the suit that she is the absolute owner of the said property pursuant to the said settlement deed, and the sale in favour of the 2nd defendant by the 1st defendant under Ex.B1 dated 27.9.1980, is sham and nominal, and the 1st defendant has no right to execute the said sale deed. It is stated that such a sale in favour of the 2nd defendant will not bind the plaintiff.

(3.) The 1st defendant contested the suit contending inter alia that the said document Ex.A4 was executed as a consideration of the plaintiff's living as a concubine of the 1st defendant. So, the said document cannot be enforceable in law. It is also stated that it is only a will and not a settlement deed and so the 1st defendant is entitled to cancel the said document, and, factually it was cancelled, and a sale deed was executed in favour of the 2nd defendant.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAJAMMAL Vs. PAPPAYEE AMMAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address