REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

SHOBA VISWANATHAN Appellant

V/S

D P KINGSLEY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

GEDGE AND OTHERS V. ROYAL EXCHANGE ASSURANCE CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
SIRIGINEEDI SUBBARAYADU V. KOPANATHI TATAYYA AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
P.C.KAPOOR V. THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T. LUCKNOW [REFERRED TO]
RAMASWAMY GOUNDER V. KM.VENKATACHALAM AND OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
SHAW V. SHAW [REFERRED TO]
SNELL V. UNITY FINANCE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
T.K.SINGARAN V. THE URBAN LAND CEILING TRIBUNAL CHEPAUK MADRAS [REFERRED TO]
JOAQUIM MASCARENHAS FIUZA V. SMT. JAIME REBELLO AND ANOTHER [REFERRED TO]
MARIAMMA VARGHESE V. THE COMMISSIONER OF LAND REFORMS AND 2 OTHERS [REFERRED TO]
RENUSAGAR POWER COMPANY LIMITED V. GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY [REFERRED TO]
GHERULAL PARAKH VS. MAHADEODAS MAIYA [REFERRED TO]
SIN SURASAIBALINI DEBI VS. PHANINDRA MOHAN MAJUMDAR [REFERRED TO]
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA VS. ESCORTS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
M G WAGH VS. JAY ENGINEERING WORKS LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
PARAK UNNAN VEETILL JOSEPHS SON MATHEW VS. NEDUMBARA KURUVILAS SON [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN CHAND HIRA CHAND VS. ASKAR NAWAZ JUNG [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. SUNIL CHANDRA SAHA [REFERRED TO]
AJIT PRASAD JAIN VS. N K WIDHANI [REFERRED TO]
HAMSARAJ BOKARIA DEAD ETC VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [REFERRED TO]
S SANKARAN DIED VS. N G RADHAKRISHNAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT in C. S. No. 239 of 1982, on the file of this court, is the appellant. Plaintiff therein is the respondent.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, in this appeal parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit.

(3.) THE learned judge before whom evidence was taken, passed a decree in terms of the plaint. But in paragraph 26 of the judgment, the learned Judge said that the relief of declaration of title cannot be maintained. It is better to extract that portion of the judgment wherein the learned Judge has said thus: ' ;. . THE further relief claimed in the suit is for declaration that plaintiff is the owner of the house and premises at No. 106, Harrington Road, Madras-31 from 1. 12. 1981. THE claim for this relief, if I may say so, is preposterous. Sale deed in his favour is yet to be executed. While so, it is meaningless to claim that plaintiff has become the owner of the suit property from 1. 12. 1981. If the plaintiff continues to be in possession of the suit property, he will have to pay either rent or damages for use and occupation to the defendant till his possession becomes that of the owner of the property. He has not parted with the sale price to the defendant. While that being so, apart from the fact that there is no sale deed, his claim that he has become owner of the house from 1. 12. 1981 does not have any merits and has to be rejected. . . . . . . .'; Why we extracted this part of the judgment in the suit will be explained later.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHOBA VISWANATHAN Vs. D P KINGSLEY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address