REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

KAMALAMMAL (DEAD) Appellant

V/S

GIRIJA Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SAROJINI AMMAL V. KRISHNAVENI AMMAL ALIAS BABY AMMAL [RELIED ON]
DALIP SINGH V. MEHAR SINGH RATHEE [REFERRED TO]
AFSAR SHAIKH V. SOLEMAN BIBI [FOLLOWED ON]
ANJALAI AMMAL V. DURAISAMY [RELIED ON]
VEERASEKARAN V. DEVARASU [RELIED ON]
M. VENKATASUBBAIAH V. M. SUBBAMMA [RELIED ON]
BISHUNDEO NARAIN VS. SEOGENI RAI [FOLLOWED ON]
S M KARIM VS. BIBI SAKINA [REFERRED TO]
LALLI YESHWANT SINGH DEAD VS. RAO JAGDISH SINGH [REFERRED TO]
SOMNATH BURMAN VS. S P RAJU [REFERRED TO]
SIDRAMAPPA VS. RAJASHETTY [REFERRED TO]
PURAN SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [FOLLOWED ON]
SUKHRANI DEAD VS. HARI SHANKER [REFERRED TO]
BENGAL WATERPROOF LIMITED VS. BOMBAY WATERPROOF MANUFACTURING COMPANY [FOLLOWED ON]
BENGAL WATERPROOF LIMITED VS. BOMBAY WATERPROOF MANUFACTURING COMPANY [FOLLOWED ON]
KONDIBA DAGADU KADAM VS. SAVITRIBAI SOPAN GUJAR [FOLLOWED ON]
KUNJAN NAIR SIVARAMAN NAIR VS. NARAYANAN NAIR [REFERRED TO]
ESCORTS FARMS LIMITED VS. COMMISSIONER OF KUMANON DIVISION NAINITAL [REFERRED TO]
BHANU KUMAR JAIN VS. ARCHANA KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
S NAZEER AHMED VS. STATE BANK OF MYSORE [RELIED ON]
P T MUNICHIKKANNA REDDY VS. REVAMMA [FOLLOWED ON]
SAROJA VS. CHINUSAMY [FOLLOWED ON]
KRISHNAN VS. BACKIAM [RELIED ON]
BOODIREDDY CHANDRAIAH VS. ARIGELA LAXMI [FOLLOWED ON]
ANNAKILI VS. A VEDANAYAGAM [REFERRED TO]
SAVITHRAMMA VS. H GURAPPA REDDY [RELIED ON]
V MUTHIAH PILLAI VS. VEDAMBAL [FOLLOWED ON]
MARIUS LOUIS PERIA VS. SANTO RANE CHARLES [RELIED ON]
VIJAYAN ALIAS JAYAPANDIAN VS. STATE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The following are the allegations contained in the plaint in O.S. No. 6687 of 1996:

(2.) In the written statement filed by the first defendant, namely, P. Vidyuthavalli Thayar, the following allegations are found:

(3.) The allegations in terse in the additional written statement filed by the first defendant are thus: In 1958, a watchman engaged by the defendant died and one vagrant by name Subramanya Choudary who come to Madras to eke his livelihood by employing himself in menial roles in the films, was in occupation of her store shed and he got into it with two others by name Chinnayya who was a scavenger in the Madras Corporation and Another person Ranganathan who was driver of a refuse collecting lorry of Madras Corporation. After the decree was passed in O.S. No. 968 of 1958, as many as 10 execution petitions were filed right from 1960 to 1971 for execution of the decree. It is false and misleading to state that this defendant who is the owner of the suit property dispossessed the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are mere trespassers. This defendant has filed a comprehensive suit in C.S. No. 201 of 1993. The executability of the decree in O.S. No. 968 of 1958 is not curtailed by any law.

Click here to view full judgment.

KAMALAMMAL Vs. GIRIJA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address