Saroja v. v.Gunasekaran
Case brief
What is this about?
In two second appeals, the Madras High Court dismissed challenges to decrees favoring a respondent (original allottee) over an appellant claiming rights via a Power of Attorney. The Court held the suit barred under the Slum Clearance Act and rejected the claim of ownership.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeals were dismissed; the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed; no costs awarded.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
15.06.2021 CORAM THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA S.A.Nos.1575 and 1576 of 2010 and M.P.No.1 of 2012 Saroja ...Appellant in S.A.Nos.1575 and 1576 of 2010 Vs. 1. V. Gunasekaran .. 1st respondent in S.A.No.1575 of 2010 .. 2nd respondent in S.A.No.1576 of 2010 2. The Chairman, Slum Clearance Board, No.5, Kamarajar Salai, Chennai - 600 005. .. 2nd respondent in S.A.Nos.1575 of 2010 .. 1st respondent in S.A.Nos.1576 of 2010
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgement and decree of the II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai (Incharge III Additional City Civil Judge, Chennai) passed in A.S.Nos.54 and 55 of 2009, dated 23.07.2010 confirming the judgment and decree of the III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.Nos.6956 and 6209 of 1998 respectively dated 1.08.2008.
For Appellant : Mr. N. Rajan For Respondents : Mr. N. Sankaravadivel for R1 Ms. D. Latha for R2 C O M M O N JUDGEMENT
The above Second Appeals are filed challenging the concurrent judgements and decree of the Courts below.
- When the above appeals had come up for admission on
04.02.2011, this Court had directed notice to the respondents. The respondents have also entered appearance in the matter.
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a suit based on a Power of Attorney granting only maintenance rights is barred under Section 65 of the Tamil Nadu Slum Area (Improvement and Clearance Act, 1971.
Whether the appellant acquired ownership of the suit property despite the Power of Attorney specifying no consideration and retention of sale deeds by principals.
Whether the substantial questions of law raised by the appellant warrant interference with the findings of the Courts below.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Saroja
- respondent
V. Gunasekaran
- respondent
The Chairman, Slum Clearance Board
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court