S. Thiagarajan vs Saraswathy Kittu And 6 Others on 10 September, 1999
In Kumaraswamy Kounder v. Elumalai Kounder, it has been held as follows:
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (1.10 seconds)Documents citing
R. Kumarasamy Kounder vs V. Ezhumalai Kounder on 10 January, 1996
R. Jamuna Bai vs M.A. Anusuya And 3 Others on 28 March, 2001
In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in R. Kumarasamy Gounder v. V. Ezhumalai Kounder, , there is a reference to the decision reported in Venkatasubbamna v. Narayanaswami, AIR 1954 Mad. 250.
Thiru N.Raghuraman And Tmt. R.Jayasree vs V.Ezumalai Kounder (1996(Ii) C.T.C. ... on 21 October, 2011
In the judgment relied on by the learned counsel for the appellant in R.Kumarasamy Gounder v. V.Ezhumalai Kounder, 1996(2) C.T.C. 150, there is a reference to the decision reported in Venkatasubbamna v. Narayanswami, AIR 1954 Mad. 250.
Ramachandran And Jalaja vs Baby, Vatchala, Gowri, Kannan, Sampath ... on 26 March, 2003
Another decision in the case of R.Kumarasamy Kounder v. V.Ezhumalai Kounder wherein this Court has held as follows:
K.A.Shanmugam vs Tamilarasi on 23 September, 2011
In AIR 1927 PRIVY COUNCIL 42 (supra), it has been held as follows:
Sakunthalammal(Died) vs T.G.Rajabathar(Died) on 17 September, 2012
(iii) The judgement of Madras High Court in 1996(II) CTC 150 R.KUMARASAMY KOUNDER V. V.EZHUMALAI KOUNDER;
R.Dayalan vs Nagarathnam on 2 November, 2012
(Viii) 1996 (II) CTC 150 (Kumarasamy Kounder, R v. V.Ezhumalai Kounder). In this decision, it has been held as follows:-
Chinnammal vs Valliammal @ Pappu on 17 December, 2014
in the absence of any express reservation of a power of revocation in the gift deed, a donor does not continue to have the right to revoke a gift.
In another judgment of this Court reported in R.Kumaraswamy Kounder v. Elumalai Kounder, 1996 (II) CTC 150, it has been held as follows:-
Santha Bai vs Ponnamma And Gausalya Bai on 23 February, 2004
(1) R. Kumarasamy Kounder - vs. - V. Ezhumalai Kounder , in which this Court has observed in paragraph 16:-
Kasi Gounder vs Chinnapaiya Gounder on 28 June, 2001
11. When the plaintiff has come forward with a suit for declaration and recovery of possession, the burden is only upon the plaintiff to show that he has got valid title to the property and based upon the title, he is entitled to get recovery of possession. From the recital under Ex. A-4, it is clear that an absolute right was made in favour of the plaintiff, but for the reasons stated in Ex.B-1, it was cancelled. It is referred that the plaintiff had failed to maintain her and therefore, she cancelled Ex.A-4. One of the contentions raised was that since the absolute right was conferred under Ex. A- 4, she had no right whatsoever to cancel the document. P.W. 2 has been examined to prove the execution of Ex.A-4 . Reliance is also placed upon the decision reported in R. Kumaraswamy Kounder v. V. Ezhumalai Kounder that if the execution of the document is accepted the settlee need not examine anyone for proving the same.