Valliammal v. Parvathi
Case brief
What is this about?
The single judge held that where a previous Advocate Commissioner report exists and the suit is ripe for trial, appointing a new commissioner for the same properties is not necessary. C.R.P.No.2784 of 2019 was dismissed accordingly.
What did the court decide?
Application to appoint Advocate Commissioner dismissed; costs awarded against the petitioner; connected petition closed.
What the court decided
C.R.P.No.2784 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.09.2023
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
C.R.P.No.2784 of 2019
and
C.M.P.No.18303 of 2019
1.Tmt.Valliammal
- 2.M.Chandrasekaran 3.M.Govindaswamy
.. Petitioners
vs
- 1.Tmt.Parvathi
- 2.Tmt.Bhuvaneshwari
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an Advocate Commissioner should be appointed for the same properties where a previous report is already on record and the suit is ripe for trial.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Tmt.Valliammal
- respondent
Tmt.Parvathi
- respondent
M.Chandrasekaran
- respondent
M.Govindaswamy
- respondent
Tmt.Bhuvaneshwari
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court