REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

N.NATARAJ Appellant

V/S

KUPPUSAMY GOUNDER Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

CHUNILAL V. MEHTA AND SONS LTD. V. CENTURY SPG. AND MGF. CO. LTD. [REFERRED TO]
ORIENTAL INVESTMENT CO LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
PRATIVA DEVI VS. T V KRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]
SATYA GUPTA ALIAS MADHU GUPTA VS. BRUESH KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
RAGAVENDRA KUMAR VS. FIRM PREM MACHINARY AND CO [REFERRED TO]
MOLAR MAL DEAD VS. KAY IRON WORKS PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
JAI SINGH VS. SHAKUNTALA [REFERRED TO]
KASHMIR SINGH VS. HARNAM SINGH [REFERRED TO]
BHARATHA MATHA VS. R VIJAYA RENGANATHAN [REFERRED TO]
DINESH KUMAR VS. YUSUF ALI [REFERRED TO]
VIJAY KUMAR TALWAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DELHI [REFERRED TO]
SETH SUWALAL CHHOGALAL VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [REFERRED TO]
BIBHABATI DEVI VS. RAMENDRA NARAYAN ROY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) COMPENDIOUSLY and concisely, the relevant facts absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these two second appeals would run thus:

(2.) HEARD both sides.

(3.) PER contra, the learned counsel for the respondent/Kuppusamy Gounder would advance his arguments, the gist and kernel of them would run thus: The first appellate court though decreed the suit in O.S.NO.85 of 2001 in toto in favour of Kuppusamy Gounder, yet taking into account the fact that Nataraja Gounder has been refusing to permit Kuppusamy Gounder to have ingress and egress to the property and enjoying it, he after passing of the common judgment dated 18.08.2008, has filed a separate suit for recovery of possession and as such, the first appellate court's declaration of Kuppusamy Gounder's ownership over 26 = cents of land, warrants no interference. Inconcinnity with the partition deed Ex.A1, both the courts below concurrently negatived the plea of adverse possession raised by the plaintiff.

Click here to view full judgment.

N.NATARAJ Vs. KUPPUSAMY GOUNDER

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address