EASWARI Vs. PARVATHI
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-49
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
July 10,2014
EASWARI
Appellant
VERSUS
PARVATHI
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
BHAURAO SHANKAR LOKHANDE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [REFERRED TO]VIDHYADHAR VS. MANKIKRAO [REFERRED TO]
HAFZAT HUSSAIN S O MUBARAK HUSSAIN VS. ABDUL MAJEED S O WALI MOHAMMAD SHEIKH BALLAN [REFERRED TO]
S NAGALINGAM VS. SIVAGAMI [REFERRED TO]
VEERAYEE AMMAL VS. SEENI AMMAL [REFERRED TO]
YADARAO DAJIBA SHRAWANE VS. NANILAL HARAKCHAND SHAH DEAD [REFERRED TO]
RATTAN DEV VS. PASAM DEVI [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN AND ANR. VS. SANTHA BAI AMMAL AND ORS. [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
DHARM SINGH AND ORS. VS. KRISHNI DEVI AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-3-126] [REFERRED TO]R. USHA VS. A.C. SARANGAN AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-2-150] [REFERRED TO]
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED VS. L H OF DECD. ODHAVJIBHAI [LAWS(GJH)-2023-5-363] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGNA HARDIPSINH ZALA VS. KRISHNAKUMAR VERISALJI JADEJA [LAWS(GJH)-2023-5-90] [REFERRED TO]
JAYSINGH MANSINGH NAYAK VS. ADMINISTRATOR METHODIST TECHNICAL INSTITUTE [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-333] [REFERRED TO]
S. NARSIMHA REDDY VS. G. VIJAYAMMA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN VS. KUSHUM LASHKARI [LAWS(MPH)-2019-8-169] [REFERRED TO]
S. RAMJAN BEEVI VS. K. NALLAMOHAMMED [LAWS(MAD)-2018-2-329] [REFERRED TO]
SURJIT SINGH AND ORS. VS. AJMER SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-4-106] [REFERRED TO]
SOONDAN VS. SELLAKKANNU AMBALAM [LAWS(MAD)-2015-10-157] [REFERRED TO]
B.KISTA REDDY VS. V.SRILATHA [LAWS(TLNG)-2023-4-123] [REFERRED TO]
BHILAJI BANDU SUTAR & LOHAR VS. RANGARAO SHANKAR SUTAR [LAWS(BOM)-2014-12-98] [REFERRED TO]
JENABAI AAMAD LOHAR VS. SINGHAL MAHENDRA MANSANG [LAWS(GJH)-2023-5-42] [REFERRED TO]
TAHERABIBI GULAMNABI MEHSANIYA VS. KHAIRUNISHA GULAMNABI GATHAWAL [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-1479] [REFERRED TO]
OSMAN RAMJUBHAI DHOBHI VS. THE STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-192] [REFERRED TO]
SUGRIBA GANTAYAT VS. INDRAMANI PRADHAN AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2017-11-153] [REFERRED TO]
UDMI AND ORS. VS. BIRBAL AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-1-92] [REFERRED TO]
M. VENKATESH AND ORS. VS. NANJAPPA [LAWS(MAD)-2021-3-398] [REFERRED TO]
ISMAILBHAI KASAMBHAI MUDIYA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-158] [REFERRED TO]
UMESHBHAI SUMANBHAI CHAMADBHAI CHAUDHARI VS. TULSIBHAI SUDHARABHAI CHAUDHARI [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-1325] [REFERRED TO]
KIRAN RAMANLAL INAMDAR VS. GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD [LAWS(GJH)-2023-5-6] [REFERRED TO]
JASWINDER KAUR AND ORS. VS. KARNAIL SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2015-5-481] [REFERRED TO]
KAUSHIK LAXMANSINH RATHOD VS. RAJENDRASINH DAULATSINH CHAUHAN [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-1184] [REFERRED TO]
NARSINHBHAI NARANBHAI GOHEL VS. SUVASBEN JAYESHBHAI PATEL [LAWS(GJH)-2023-4-104] [REFERRED TO]
TEJPAL SINGH & ORS. VS. KUSHAL PAL SINGH & ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-2017-5-137] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This appeal has been filed assailing the judgment and order dated July 22, 2003 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras in Second Appeal No.1806 of 1992. The High Court after perusing the facts and the evidence on record by the said judgment and order allowed the second appeal confirming the order of the Trial Court and setting aside the order passed by the first appellate court.
(2.)The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The respondents herein (plaintiffs before the Trial Court) filed a suit for declaration and injunction with regard to the properties described as schedule "A" and schedule "B" properties and the Trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs for both the schedule properties. Assailing the said Trial Court's decision the appellant herein filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the "B" schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) but reversed the decree with regard to "A" Schedule property culminating in filing the second appeal.
(3.)The plaintiffs, respondents herein, filed Original Suit No. 59 of 1985 before the District Munsif Court at Polur as the legal heirs of deceased Ponnangatti Gounder. The disputes pertained to the properties which were held by deceased Ponnangatti Gounder and his first wife who pre-deceased him. Ponnangatti Gounder acquired the suit "A" schedule property through succession from his ancestors. The suit property mentioned as schedule "B" property was purchased by Muniammal by registered conveyance deed dated September 14, 1970. Both were in possession and enjoyment of Ponnangatti Gounder and Muniammal and after their death the plaintiffs were and are in possession of the said properties. After the death of Muniammal, it is alleged by the first defendant and her brother, the second defendant that the said Ponnangatti Gounder married the first defendant as a result whereof she made a claim over the suit property.
(2.)The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The respondents herein (plaintiffs before the Trial Court) filed a suit for declaration and injunction with regard to the properties described as schedule "A" and schedule "B" properties and the Trial Court passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs for both the schedule properties. Assailing the said Trial Court's decision the appellant herein filed an appeal before the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court confirmed the "B" schedule property in favour of the plaintiffs (respondents herein) but reversed the decree with regard to "A" Schedule property culminating in filing the second appeal.
(3.)The plaintiffs, respondents herein, filed Original Suit No. 59 of 1985 before the District Munsif Court at Polur as the legal heirs of deceased Ponnangatti Gounder. The disputes pertained to the properties which were held by deceased Ponnangatti Gounder and his first wife who pre-deceased him. Ponnangatti Gounder acquired the suit "A" schedule property through succession from his ancestors. The suit property mentioned as schedule "B" property was purchased by Muniammal by registered conveyance deed dated September 14, 1970. Both were in possession and enjoyment of Ponnangatti Gounder and Muniammal and after their death the plaintiffs were and are in possession of the said properties. After the death of Muniammal, it is alleged by the first defendant and her brother, the second defendant that the said Ponnangatti Gounder married the first defendant as a result whereof she made a claim over the suit property.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.