Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.34 seconds)
Documents citing Sekar vs Sivakumaran on 7 April, 2011

D.Gurumurthy vs N.Sathish on 15 June, 2017

AIR 1992 Delhi 118 (Sanjay Kaushish Vs. D.C.Kaushish and Others), (1918)ILR 42 Bom 638 (Narsagounda Bin Savantgounda .. Vs. Chawagounda Adgounda Patil), AIR 2006 MP 58 (Bank of India Vs. S.K.Mukherjee and Anr.) (1999) 3 SCC 457 (Iswar Bhai C.Patel & Bachu Bhai ... Vs. Harihar Behera & Anr.) 2006 (5) SCC 353 (Prem Singh & Ors Vs. Birbal & Ors), (2009) 1 SCC 229 (L.N.Aswathama & Anr. Vs. P.Prakash) (2011) 5 MLJ 871 (Sekar Vs. Sivakumaran and three others), and the judgment of this Court rendered in S.A.No.215 of 2003 (Natarajan Vs. Paramasivam) are relied upon. The Principles of Law enunciated in the above said decisions are taken into consideration and followed as applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case at hand. In such view of the matter, I hold that the sale deed dated 18.07.1980 registered as document No.2379/1980 of the Sub Registrar Office, Saidapet is a true and valid document. Accordingly, issue No.1 is answered against the plaintiff and in favour of the defendants.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - T Ravindran - Full Document

G.K.Suganya vs N.P.Sekar

8. The learned counsel for the petitioners would further submit that, the petition schedule property is the ancestral property of the petitioners as it was allotted to the second respondent in the partition deed dated 14.07.1990 and the second respondent cannot have absolute right to execute the sale agreement as they are also having each 1/4th share in it. In support of the said contention the petitioners relied on the decisions in The Additional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras-1 Vs. P.L.Karuppan Chettiar's case reported in AIR 1979 Mad.1, Rohit Chauhan Vs. Surinder Singh and others' case reported in AIR 2013 SC 3525, M.Krishnamoorthy Vs. Pondeepankar and 4 others's case reported in 2017 (3) CTC 170 and S.Palanivelu and another Vs. Natesan and 4 others & Palanivel and another Vs. Thamari Nayaki and 7 others's case reported in 2018 (1) CTC 50. The first respondent has denied the nature of the property and contended that, the eptition schedule property is a separate property of the second respondent. Though, he pleaded as above in the counter statement, in his cross examination has admitted that, the second respondent has divided the ancestral properties with his brother and mother through a Partition deed dated 14.07.1990.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - J S Prasad - Full Document
1