REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KRISHNAKUMARI Appellant

V/S

PONNUSAMY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

BABURAJAN VS. PARUKUTTY AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
TILAYYIL MAINMO VS. KOTTIATH RAMUMI [REFERRED TO]
SAMANT N BALKRISHNA VS. GEORGE FERNANDEZ [REFERRED TO]
MODI SPINNING AND WEAVING MILLS COMPANY LIMITED VS. LADHA RAM AND CO [REFERRED TO]
FORWARD CONSTRUCTION CO MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY PRABHAT MANDAL VS. PRABHAT MANDAL REGD ANDHERI:PRABHAT MANDAL:MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
S P CHENGALVARAYA NAIDU VS. JAGANNATH [REFERRED TO]
HOPE PLANTATIONS VS. LTD [REFERRED TO]
BORAMMA VS. KRISHNA GOWDA [REFERRED TO]
SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE VS. ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER [REFERRED TO]
BALDEV SINGH VS. MANOHAR SINGH [REFERRED TO]
RANGANAYAKAMMA VS. K S PRAKASH [REFERRED TO]
BHARPUR SINGH VS. SHAMSHER SINGH [REFERRED TO]
VIMAL CHAND GHEVARCHAND JAIN VS. RAMAKANT EKNATH JAJOO [REFERRED TO]
DALIP SINGH VS. STATE OF U P [REFERRED TO]
VINOD SETH VS. DEVINDER BAJAJ [REFERRED TO]
OMPRAKASH VERMA VS. STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH [REFERRED TO]
RANGAMMAL VS. KUPPUSWAMI [REFERRED TO]
MARIA MARGARIDA SEQUERIA FERNANDES VS. ERASMO JACK DE SEQUERIA DEAD THROUGH L RS [REFERRED TO]
SHAKUNTALA DEVI VS. SAVITRI DEVI [REFERRED TO]
C RAMAKRISHNAN VS. CORPORATION OF MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
JANAKI BOHIDAR VS. PRADEEP KUMAR BOHIDAR [REFERRED TO]
SUGUNA BAI VS. MUNIAMMAL ALIAS DHANALAKSHMI [REFERRED TO]
SELVARASU KOUNDER VS. SAHADEVA KOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIYA MOOPANAR DIED VS. R SUMATHI [REFERRED TO]
PALANI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VS. C SADASIVAM [REFERRED TO]
Dalmia Cement Bharat Limited VS. Uthandi alias Peria Uthandi [REFERRED TO]
LATIF ESTATE LINE INDIA LTD VS. HADEEJA AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
MUNSHI EHTISHAM ALI VS. JAMNA PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
MUTHUSELVI VS. SIVAGURUNATHAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the judgment and preliminary decree dated 20th day of December 2007 in O.S No 68 of 2005 passed by the Additional District Judge at Karaikal.The brief facts of the case are as follows:

(2.) The suit property was purchased by the plaintiff along with his other brothers and the same was registered in the name of one of his brothers Durairaj, the husband of the 1st defendant. According to him, the properties standing in the name of Durairaj devolved on the 1st defendant and his mother Papathiammal. A release deed dated 04.09.1998 was obtained by the 1st defendant from Papathiammal by playing fraud and subsequently the same was cancelled vide revocation deed dated 28.02.1999. After the cancellation, the said Papathiammal had executed a will dated 04.12.2000 and bequeathed her share in the suit properties. The plaintiff has stated that though a release deed was executed in favour of him, the same was never acted upon.

(3.) The 1st defendant resisted the suit by filing the written statement saying that the unilateral revocation of release deed is invalid as the release deed can be revoked only by the decree of the court. In the release deed, dated 25.08.2000, the execution of earlier release deed was confirmed and that the suit was liable to be dismissed for seeking the relief of partial partition and it is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. The will was not genuine and in any case, the said Papathiammal had no right over the properties on the date of execution of the will and that she herself withdrew the suit filed in O.s No 38/1999 and hence, the first defendant sought for the dismissal of the suit.

Click here to view full judgment.

KRISHNAKUMARI Vs. PONNUSAMY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address