Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.20 seconds)
V.Sankararaman vs V.Sundarrajan @ Sundar on 3 March, 2025 cites

Venkataraman @ Murali @ Raja, Girija And ... vs R. Venugopal And R. Ganesan @ Vinayagam on 14 December, 2007

35. It is also seen that the Defendant herein, as Plaintiff, filed O.S. No. 20 of 2010 to restrain the Plaintiffs in the present suit by way of a bare https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 14/03/2025 03:56:29 pm ) 20/23 A.S.No.409 of 2023 injunction. The learned District Munsif, Alandur dismissed the suit on 11.06.2014 against which an appeal is said to have been filed and pending. It is needless to mention that O.S. No. 20 of 2010 was filed for a bare injunction. On the other hand, the present suit is filed for partition. The pleadings contained in O.S. No. 20 of 2010 are contrary to the defence raised by the Appellant/Defendant in this appeal. In any event, it is established that the property described in the plaint is not the self-acquired property of the Defendant. Rather, the property was settled in favour of the Defendant by the sons born to the first wife of Vaithyanathan, who referred the Defendant as their brother. It is also established by the Plaintiffs that they have paid Rs.40,000/- to the said V. Venkataraman and V. Ganesan for executing the release deed in favour of the Defendant. It is also clearly made out and rather admitted by the Defendant himself that the second Plaintiff is his mother. If it is so, naturally, it has to be presumed and inferred that the Defendant is the son born to Vaithyanathan and the second Plaintiff. The second Plaintiff, mother of the first Plaintiff and Defendant has also stepped into the witness box and categorically asserted that the Defendant is the son born to her out of the wedlock between her and her husband Vaithyanathan. In such circumstances, the claim of the Plaintiffs for partition of the suit scheduled property is legal, legitimate and bona fide. The trial court, on proper appreciation of the pleadings, oral and documentary https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on:evidence has pm 14/03/2025 03:56:29 rightly ) granted a preliminary 21/23 A.S.No.409 of 2023 decree for partition and this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the same.
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - M Venugopal - Full Document
1