NAZIR MOHAMED Vs. J. KAMALA
LAWS(SC)-2020-8-46
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on August 27,2020

NAZIR MOHAMED Appellant
VERSUS
J. Kamala Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

RAHUL WADHWANI VS. RAJESH ANAND [LAWS(DLH)-2022-1-70] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMINARAYANAN VS. FAMILY MANAGER V SURIYANARAYANAN [LAWS(MAD)-2020-11-77] [REFERRED TO]
BHANWAR LAL VS. SRINIWAS [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-2-51] [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL LATHEEF MARICAR VS. AISA BEEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-401] [REFERRED TO]
GAIN CHAND VS. STATE [LAWS(DLH)-2022-1-78] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESHBHAI RAMANIKLAL CONTRACTOR VS. DINESHBHAI RAMNIKLAL CONTRACTOR [LAWS(GJH)-2021-6-358] [REFERRED TO]
FIRM DHANRAJ DEV KISHAN VS. SRINIWAS [LAWS(RAJ)-2022-2-103] [REFERRED TO]
SUNDARAM VS. L GOWRI SHANKAR [LAWS(MAD)-2021-1-147] [REFERRED TO]
SHAH ASHOKKUMAR RAMNIKLAL VS. SHAH HASMUKHLAL SHIVLAL [LAWS(GJH)-2022-6-1654] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

INDIRA BANERJEE, J. - (1.)These appeals are against a common judgment and order dated 06.11.2008 dismissing the Second Appeal being S.A. (MD) No.64 of 2000, filed by the Appellant, but allowing the Second Appeal being S.A. (MD) No.558 of 2000 filed by the Respondent, and setting aside the judgment and decree dated 17.09.1999 of the First Appellate Court in A.S. No.16/1998, to the extent the First Appellate Court had declined the Respondent's claim to a decree of recovery of possession of the suit premises. The High Court held that the Respondent, being the Plaintiff in the suit was entitled to a declaration of title in respect of half portion of the suit premises, recovery of possession of the said half portion of the suit premises and also to recovery of income from the said half of the suit property owned by the Respondent and/or charges for use, enjoyment and/or occupation thereof.
(2.)The Appellant claims to be the owner of the suit premises, being the building and premises at Door No.4 in R.S. No.120/13 at Mela Senia Street, Aduthurai, Tamil Nadu.
(3.)According to the Appellant, the Appellant's father purchased the suit premises for valuable consideration, by a registered deed of sale dated 17.2.1938. The Appellant claims to have been in possession of the suit premises, as owner, from the inception and not as tenant.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.