T.Shankar v. Sivaprakasam
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal against dismissal of partition suit. High Court confirmed trial court's finding that properties ceased to be ancestral due to prior partition and transfers, denying appellants any share.
What did the court decide?
Appeal dismissed; impugned judgment and decree confirmed. No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATE : 04.04.2018
CORUM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBBIAH
and
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE P.D.AUDIKESAVALU
A.S.No.275 of 2012
- T. Shankar
2. T. Kotteswaran
3. T. Perumal
4. T. Gopinath
5. Arulmani
6. Venkatesan
7. Ravi
8. Karthi
9. Bhuvaneshwari
10.Anusuya
11.Sasidevi
12.Amul ..... Appellants/Plaintiffs
Vs.
1. Sivaprakasam
2. Vankatesan @ Durai
3. Kumatha Valli
4. Ramani
5. Bharathi
6. Bhuvaneshwari .... Respondents/Defendants
Appeal filed under Order 41 Rules 1 and 2 of Civil
Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated
08.11.2011 passed in O.S.No.13 of 2011 (Principal District
Court, Vellore O.S.No.136/2009) by the Court of Additional
District and Sessions Judge, Vellore, Vellore District (Fast
Track Court, Vellore, Vellore District).
For Appellants : Mr.D. Nagesh Babu
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
(Order of the Court was made by P.D. AUDIKESAVALU,J.,)
The Appellants/Plaintiffs have preferred this appeal against Judgment and Decree dated 08.11.2011 in O.S.No.13 of
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the suit properties ceased to be ancestral properties after oral partition and subsequent transfers?
,
Parties & counsel
- appellant
T. Shankar
- appellant
T. Kotteswaran
- appellant
T. Perumal
- appellant
T. Gopinath
- appellant
Arulmani
- appellant
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court