Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.55 seconds)

Thirumeni Alias Packiyawathi vs Sivasubramanian on 24 April, 2023

When there is no dispute that the appellants are in exclusive possession of the lands and their enjoyment claiming independent right denying the right of the any of the heirs of Late.Sivanu Thevar, is adverse to the plaintiffs. Since the legal heirs are out of possession, the suit for partition paying fixed Court Fee under Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, is not maintainable. The persons, who are in joint possession, are only entitled to file the suit under Section 37(2) of the said Act. As per Judgments in AIR 1990 Orissa 155 (Kamini Bewa Vs. Srimati Dei and others), 2001(1) MLJ 22 (Kaliammal Vs. Karuppan) and AIR 1994 AP 87 (Nalla Venkateshwarlu Vs. Porise Pullamma and others), the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, under these circumstances, the suit filed is not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document

Thirumeni Alias Packiyawathi vs Sivasubramanian on 24 April, 2023

When there is no dispute that the appellants are in exclusive possession of the lands and their enjoyment claiming independent right denying the right of the any of the heirs of Late.Sivanu Thevar, is adverse to the plaintiffs. Since the legal heirs are out of possession, the suit for partition paying fixed Court Fee under Section 37(2) of the Tamil Nadu Court Fees and Suits valuation Act, is not maintainable. The persons, who are in joint possession, are only entitled to file the suit under Section 37(2) of the said Act. As per Judgments in AIR 1990 Orissa 155 (Kamini Bewa Vs. Srimati Dei and others), 2001(1) MLJ 22 (Kaliammal Vs. Karuppan) and AIR 1994 AP 87 (Nalla Venkateshwarlu Vs. Porise Pullamma and others), the suit is not maintainable. Therefore, under these circumstances, the suit filed is not maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - P Velmurugan - Full Document
1