REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

PALANISAMY Appellant

V/S

MARIAMMAL Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

MUTHUKRISHNA AIYANGAR V. SANKARANARAYANA AIYAR [REFERRED TO]
VENKATARAMA AIYAR V. SUBRAMANIA SASTRI [REFERRED TO]
RAMACHANDRA DEO V. BALAJI [REFERRED TO]
MOIDIN V. KUNHALIKUTTI [REFERRED TO]
GOVINDASWAMI CHETTIAR V. KOTHANDAPANI CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA IN COUNCIL V. DEBENDRA LAL KHAN [REFERRED TO]
PALANIA PILLAI V. AMJATH IBRAHIM [REFERRED TO]
T.P.R.PALANIA PILLAI (DIED) AND OTHERS .VS. AMJATH IBRAHIM ROWTHER AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
P.N.KAILASANATHA MUDALIAR .VS. VISWANATHA MUDALIAR [REFERRED TO]
KARBALAI BEGUM VS. MOHAMMAD SAYEED [REFERRED TO]
PARSINNI VS. SUKHI [REFERRED TO]
ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL VILAS G DALVI NATHAL GHARAGE RAJARAM K POWAR PANDURANG B SARNOBAT VS. BALWANT ALIAS BALASAHEB BABUSAHEB PATIL AND HEIRS:RAMACHANDRA Y DALVI:RAJARAM A GHARAGE:DINKARRAO K POWAR:K L SARNOBAT [REFERRED TO]
ANNASAHEB BAPUSAHEB PATIL VILAS G DALVI NATHAL GHARAGE RAJARAM K POWAR PANDURANG B SARNOBAT VS. BALWANT ALIAS BALASAHEB BABUSAHEB PATIL AND HEIRS:RAMACHANDRA Y DALVI:RAJARAM A GHARAGE:DINKARRAO K POWAR:K L SARNOBAT [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA DEVI ALIAS VIDYA VATI VS. PREM PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
JANAKI PANDYANI VS. GANESHWAR PANDA [REFERRED TO]
KARNATAKA BOARD OF WAKF VS. GOVT OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]
P T MUNICHIKKANNA REDDY VS. REVAMMA [REFERRED TO]
KARTHIYAYANI VS. ULV KALLYANI [REFERRED TO]
KARTHIYAYANI VS. ULV KALLYANI [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAVALLI AMMAL VS. PERUMAL [REFERRED TO]
ANJANABAI VS. ASWANTIBAI [REFERRED TO]
T A MOHAMED MOIDEEN VS. T A HAJA HUSSAIN [REFERRED TO]
G. RADHAKRISHNAN VS. KANNA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second appeal is filed by the defendant against the concurrent findings of the courts below.

(2.) THE suit was filed by the respondent/plaintiff for partition claiming half share in the suit property. The plaintiff contended that the suit property was purchased by her and her husband. They had one daughter, chamundeshwari. The plaintiff and her husband separated due to a dispute. When the daughter was a minor, the plaintiff's husband sold the property in favour of the defendant's father by executing the sale deed for himself and as guardian of the minor child. The plaintiff's husband had falsely declared that the plaintiff was no more. Claiming the sale deed to be invalid and not binding on her and the sale deed could only bind half share of her husband, the plaintiff had filed the suit for partition.

(3.) RESISTING the claim, the defendant contended that the plaintiff is not the wife of late kulandaigounder, that the property was purchased by kulandaigounder in his name and in the name of his wife, that the kulandaigounder was in absolute possession, that he had mortgaged the entire property on 22 -1 -1975 and subsequently sold the property to the defendant's father on 06 -12 -1976. Subsequent to the sale, the defendant's father until his life time and subsequently the defendant has been in continuous, uninterrupted possession for 32 years and therefore claimed to have perfected the title by adverse possession.

Click here to view full judgment.

PALANISAMY Vs. MARIAMMAL

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address