SATTI PARADESI SAMADHI Vs. M. SANKUNTALA
LAWS(SC)-2014-7-50
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: MADRAS)
Decided on
July 03,2014
Satti Paradesi Samadhi
Appellant
VERSUS
M. Sankuntala
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
MAJOR S S KHANNA IN BOTH THE APPEALS VS. BRIG F J DILLON IN BOTH THE APPEALS [REFERRED TO]RAMESH B DESAI VS. BIPIN VADILAL MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
RAMRAMESHWARI DEVI VS. NIRMALA DEVI [REFERRED TO]
Cited Judgements :-
NITESH GHOSH VS. PATIYA DEVI AGARWAL [LAWS(GAU)-2017-12-57] [REFERRED TO]DHANUSDHARI YADAV VS. BUDHSAI [LAWS(CHH)-2023-2-81] [REFERRED TO]
AUDUTH MODU TIMBLO AND ORS. VS. DILIP MODU TIMBLO AND ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2015-8-172] [REFERRED TO]
N.RENUKA DEVI VS. E.LALITHA [LAWS(MAD)-2016-3-243] [REFERRED TO]
NUSLI NEVILLE WADIA VS. IVORY PROPERTIES [LAWS(SC)-2019-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMEELA N. W/O KRISHNA REDDY VS. L. MAHADEVAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-124] [REFERRED TO]
PRAMEELA N VS. KRISHNA REDDY VS L MAHADEVAIAH [LAWS(KAR)-2017-1-230] [REFERRED TO]
ANITA GUPTA VS. SADANANAD MAITRI [LAWS(CHH)-2024-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
MODTECH FURNITURE PRIVATE LTD VS. NCUBE PLANNING DESIGN PRIVATE [LAWS(DLH)-2020-6-10] [REFERRED TO]
JANG BAHADUR VS. SHIV LOCHAN AND 3 OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-2017-2-228] [REFERRED TO]
GOVIND PRASAD PANDEY VS. SANDEEP TIWARI [LAWS(CHH)-2018-1-12] [REFERRED TO]
PASCHIM GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LTD. THROUGH MANOJKUMAR JAMNADAS (EXE.ENG.) VS. KADVANI FORGE LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2017-11-212] [REFERRED TO]
R M P BEARINGS LTD VS. CHANDUBHAI SHAMJIBHAI MITHAPARA [LAWS(GJH)-2018-6-63] [REFERRED TO]
LALNUNTLUANGA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2022-9-111] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN SINGH VS. RATAN LAL [LAWS(ALL)-2022-7-74] [REFERRED TO]
SRI NITESH GHOSH & ORS VS. PATIYA DEVI AGARWAL & ORS [LAWS(GAU)-2017-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
BHARPUR SINGH VS. KULDEEP SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-231] [REFERRED TO]
BHARPUR SINGH VS. KULDEEP SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2019-4-240] [REFERRED TO]
KOMAL SINGH VS. HAMEER SINGH [LAWS(MPH)-2016-11-77] [REFERRED TO]
LOKNATH VS. HARISHCHANDRA [LAWS(CHH)-2020-2-43] [REFERRED TO]
M/S. SHRI UTTAM SOLVENT EXTRACTION P LTD. AND OTHERS VS. RAJASTHAN STATE INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD. (RIICO), JAIPUR [LAWS(RAJ)-2018-4-166] [REFERRED TO]
PREM KUMAR RASTOGI VS. ON-UP AUTOMOBILES PVT. LTD. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-2-201] [REFERRED TO]
YUDHISHTHIR SINGH AND ORS. VS. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE/SPECIAL JUDGE AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-2015-8-58] [REFERRED TO]
SANAT KHATWANI VS. MUNNI LAL SENDE [LAWS(CHH)-2024-2-20] [REFERRED TO]
ARUN KUMAR BRAHMIN VS. MAANWATI [LAWS(MPH)-2018-11-147] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESHWARI PRASAD SINGH VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2016-10-154] [REFERRED TO]
FATIMA & ANR. VS. MUKHTAR AHMAD BHAT & ORS. [LAWS(J&K)-2015-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)Leave granted.
(2.)In this appeal by special leave the plaintiff-appellant has called in question the legal sustainability of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in OSA No. 229 of 2006 whereby it has affirmed the judgment dated 24.07.2003 passed by the learned single Judge in S.C. No. 673 of 1997 whereunder he, after framing of issues on the basis of prayer being made by the defendant, has dealt with the issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue and dismissed the suit.
(3.)The factual expose' which arise for disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration seeking that the three settlement deeds dated 27.3.1978 executed by the former trustee in favour of his two daughters and a granddaughter as null and void, and for the relief of recovery of possession of the land to the trust.
(2.)In this appeal by special leave the plaintiff-appellant has called in question the legal sustainability of the judgment and order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras in OSA No. 229 of 2006 whereby it has affirmed the judgment dated 24.07.2003 passed by the learned single Judge in S.C. No. 673 of 1997 whereunder he, after framing of issues on the basis of prayer being made by the defendant, has dealt with the issue No. 1 as a preliminary issue and dismissed the suit.
(3.)The factual expose' which arise for disposal of the present appeal are that the plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration seeking that the three settlement deeds dated 27.3.1978 executed by the former trustee in favour of his two daughters and a granddaughter as null and void, and for the relief of recovery of possession of the land to the trust.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.