Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.88 seconds)
Documents citing Sridharan And Ors. vs Arumugam And Ors. on 19 March, 1993

Senthil Kumar vs Jeyabal on 15 November, 2011

"8. The High Court held that in the absence of a prayer for setting aside of the sale deeds, the suit filed by the appellant for recovery of possession was not maintainable. Placing reliance on the two Division Bench judgements in Sridharan v. Arumugam [(1993) 2 MLJ 428] and in K.Jagannathan v. A.M.Vasudevan Chettiar [(2001) 2 CTC 641] and a Full Bench decision in C.R. Ramaswami Ayyangar v. C.S.Rangachariar [ILR 1940 MAD. 259] of his own High Court, the learned Single Judge held that where the minor is an eo nomine to a sale deed or other documents related to alienation, he must sue for the cancellation of the documents and it is not enough if he applies for possession without getting the sale deed cancelled. Such a suit would not be maintainable. Since the appellant had failed to seek the relief of setting aside of the sale deed and their cancellation, the suit filed by the appellant was not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 0 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Mr.C.R.Prasanan vs Mr.Palaniselvaraj on 8 June, 2011

The allegations in the plaint to which specific reference has been adverted to both by the Court below and by me in this order would go to show that the plaintiff has failed to make specific and categorical plea of joint possession along with the defendants and the materials available on the plaint itself that she has been living in Madras all along and was not in the family, would go to show that to a case of the nature the principles laid down in Sridharan's case 1993 II MLJ 428 Supra, would be attracted and the Court below was right in holding that the plaint ought to have been valued under section 37(1) of the Act. Consequently, I do not sec any infirmity or error of law in the exercise of jurisdiction by the Court below. The revision petition, therefore, faile and shall stand dismissed."
Madras High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 0 - S Rajeswaran - Full Document

Sudha vs S.Thangavel

In view of the above, it is clear that when the Karma of the family executing the said sale deeds, merely because he takes the minors along with him as co-vendors represented by the persons other than the natural guardian, it cannot he said that the said sale deeds cannot bind the interest of the minors also, especially when the sale deeds executed by the Kartha without even impleading the minors as co-vendors bind the minors, as held in the above said decisions of the Apex Court.” (4) 1993 (2) MLJ 428 (Sridharan and Ors. vs. Arumugam and Ors.);
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thangavel vs Vijaya on 3 January, 2023

(1)AIR 2020 Mad 101 Vajjiram and others v. Annadurai and others (2)1996 (1) CTC 661 P.B.Ramjee and two others v. P.B.Lakshmanaswamy Naidu and ten others (3)1993 (2) MLJ 428 Sridharan and others v. Arumugam and others (4)2004 13 SCC 480 Nagappan v. Ammasal Gounder 8/22 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1181 of 2005 (5)(2001) 2 CTC 641 K.Jagannathan v. A.M.Vasudevan Chettiar and 12 others Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the suit filed simply for partition without seeking the relief of cancellation is therefore not maintainable. In all, the learned counsel would therefore pray the appeal be allowed and the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below to be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Thangavel vs Vijaya on 3 January, 2023

(1)AIR 2020 Mad 101 Vajjiram and others v. Annadurai and others (2)1996 (1) CTC 661 P.B.Ramjee and two others v. P.B.Lakshmanaswamy Naidu and ten others (3)1993 (2) MLJ 428 Sridharan and others v. Arumugam and others (4)2004 13 SCC 480 Nagappan v. Ammasal Gounder 8/21 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis S.A.No.1181 of 2005 (5)(2001) 2 CTC 641 K.Jagannathan v. A.M.Vasudevan Chettiar and 12 others Therefore, it is the contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the suit filed simply for partition without seeking the relief of cancellation is therefore not maintainable. In all, the learned counsel would therefore pray the appeal be allowed and the Judgment and Decree of the Courts below to be set aside.
Madras High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 0 - P T Asha - Full Document

Ashish Nevatia vs Prabhat Kumar Nevatia on 20 April, 2012

17. Of course it is true that such an order came to be passed by a learned single judge of this court (as he then was) holding that the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Neelavathi v. N.Natarajan reported in AIR 1980 SC 691, would not apply and on the other hand, a decision of a Division Bench of this court in Sridharan v. Arumugam reported in 1993 II MLJ 428 alone would apply.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - P R Shivakumar - Full Document

Madhaiyan (Died) vs Narmadha on 1 February, 2022

12. It is well settled that when the suit for partition is filed, it will be filed for the entirety of the joint family property. It is true to state that if any of the property, which was left, that can be included during the final decree proceedings. But, to this, by any stretch of imagination can it be contended that the property alienated to 3rd parties can be included during final decree proceedings without impleading the alienates, as parties to the suit. It would apply when the sale was made depriving the minors showing them as parties to the documents, it is incumbent on them to file a suit to set aside the impugned sale,as per law. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sridharan and Others Vs. Arumugam and Others reported in (1993) 2 MLJ 428 at Paragraph Nos.5, 6 7 and 10, held as follows:
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - M Govindaraj - Full Document
1   2 Next