Mr.v.Rajagopalan v. Mrs.T.R.Parimala
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeal suit dismissed against a lower court decree allowing partition of suit property recorded in joint names. The High Court found no infirmity in the judgment recognizing the wife's entitlement to half share based on the sale deed, despite the appellant's challenge regarding financial contributions and eviction.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 28.06.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
A.S.No.283 of 2015 and M.P.No.1 of 2015
V.Rajagopalan .... Appellant
Vs
T.R.Parimala .... Respondent
PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of CPC to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2013 made in O.S.No.189 of 2008 on the file of the Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.V.K.Sathiamurthy For Respondent : Mr.K.Bijai Sundar
JUDGMENT
This Appeal suit is filed against the Judgment and Decree dated 11.12.2013 made in O.S.No.189 of 2008 on the file of the II Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Chennai, thereby allowing the suit for partition.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the appellant is entitled to set aside the judgment and decree allowing partition of the suit property based on the sale deed in joint names.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a 1/2 share in the suit property as per the sale deed despite the husband's claim to financial contribution.
Whether there is any infirmity or illegality in the lower court decreeing the suit for partition.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
V. Rajagopalan
- respondent
T.R. Parimala
Coram
G.K. Ilanthiraiyan
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court