V.Kala v. Thamizharasan
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madras High Court dismissed two first appeals filed by a plaintiff challenging the validity of a sale deed executed to settle a bank loan. The trial court held the deed valid and granted defendants an injunction for possession; the High Court found no infirmity in those findings.
What did the court decide?
Both first appeals dismissed; counter claim allowed directing plaintiff to vacate and hand over possession; no order as to costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN
AS.NOS.437 & 338 OF 2019 AND CMP.NO.11448 OF 2019
AS.No.437 of 2019
V.Kala ...Appellant / Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Thamizharasan 2.Sundaram @ Shanmugam 3.R.E.Varadharajan ...Respondents / Defendants
PRAYER : Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of CPC r/w Order 41 Rule 1 of CPC to set aside the judgment and decree dated 25.09.2018 in OS.No.106 of 2014 on the file of III Additional District Judge, Pondicherry.
For Appellant : Mr.R.Thiagarajan For Respondents For R1 & 2 : Mr.M.Rajasekhar For R3 : No appearance
AS.No.338 of 2019
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court finds any infirmity in the trial court's conclusion that the sale deed dated 20.03.2006 was validly executed for proper consideration.
Whether the defendants are entitled to mandatory injunction and vacant possession of the suit property given the plaintiff's failure to vacate after the sale deed.
Whether the first appeals filed by the plaintiff against the dismissal of her suit and allowance of the defendants' counter claim merit interference.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
V. Kala
- respondent
1. Thamizharasan 2. Sundaram 3. R.E. Varadharajan
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