REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

VEDIAMMAL Appellant

V/S

M KANDASAMY Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

LAXMIDAS V NANAHHAI [REFERRED TO]
SAROJINI AMMA V. DAKSHYANI AMMA [REFERRED TO]
HEMRAJ V. YAMUNABAI [REFERRED TO]
NARHARI VS. SHANKER [REFERRED TO]
BADRI NARAYAN SINGH VS. KAMDEO PRASAD SINGH [REFERRED TO]
LAXIMDAS DAYAHUAL KABRAWALA VS. NANABHAI CHUNILNL AABRAWALA [REFERRED TO]
SHEODAN SINGH VS. DARYAO KUNWAR [REFERRED TO]
RAMAGYA PRASAD GUPTA VS. MURLI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
PANDURANG RAMCHANDRA MANDLIK VS. SHANTIBAI RAMCHANDRA GHATGE [REFERRED TO]
PREMIER TYRES LIMITED VS. KERALA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
MANAGING DIRECTOR VS. K RAMACHANDRA NAIDU [REFERRED TO]
PRALHAD LALCHAND CHAVAN VS. IQBAL HUSSAIN INAYAT HUSSAIN BADRI [REFERRED TO]
AJAM MOHAMMAD HATIN VS. YUSUF MOHAMMAD BHARUCHA [REFERRED TO]
DAGA FILMS VS. LOTUS PRODUCTION [REFERRED TO]
UTHANDARAMA PILLAI VS. M ARUMUGHAM PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
SHIVKALI BAI VS. MEERA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN CHANDRA DE VS. PRATIRODH SAHIM [REFERRED TO]
ANGAPPA GOUNDER VS. RAJAVELU GOUNDER [REFERRED TO]
S KANDASWAMI CHETTIAR AS TRUSTEE OF DHARMARAJA KOIL VS. R A MURUGESA CHETTIAR [REFERRED TO]
T K V S VIDYAPOORNACHARY SONS VS. M R KRISHNAMACHARY [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFFS in O. S. No. 337 of 1985, on the file of District Munsif's Court, Harur, are the appellants.

(2.) SUIT filed by them was to declare their title to 1-17 acres of land which is more specifically described in the plaint schedule. It is their case that they purchased the property as per sale deed dated 29. 5. 1974 from Chinnappa Gounder, Sevatha Gounder and Raja Gounder. It is further said that even though the sale deed refers to only one acre of land, in fact they obtained possession of 1-17 acres, and ever since the sale deed of 1974, they came into possession of the property, and the same was within the boundaries described in the sale deed. It is further said that the property has also been sub-divided and the said 1 acre, 17 cents has been given sub-division numbers, and they are also paying revenue to the Government. Cause of action was stated to be that de- fendants 2 to 4, who are previous owners have instigated first defendant to trespass into the portion and, therefore, the suit was filed for the reliefs stated above.

(3.) AN appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court by plaintiff. Lower appellate court also confirmed all the findings of the trial court.

Click here to view full judgment.

VEDIAMMAL Vs. M KANDASAMY

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address