Allowed

M.Jacob v. M.Joseph Mathew

Madras HC16 Dec 2024CMP/3162/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Interlocutory application in a pending appeal seeking leave to produce a 1994 sale deed as additional evidence. The first respondent consented subject to costs; the court allowed the petition on payment of Rs.10,000 to the first respondent by a fixed date.

What did the court decide?

Petition allowed; appellant may mark sale deed dated 09.03.1994 as additional evidence, on paying Rs.10,000 costs to first respondent by 03.01.2025.

M.Jacob Vs M.Joseph Mathew — Property and Title | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

CMP NO. 3162 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 16-12-2024

¶2

CORAM

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶4

CMP NO. 3162 of 2023

¶5

AND

¶6

AS NO. 260 OF 2022

¶7

M.JACOB

¶8

FLAT NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, NO.17/49, GOVINDASAMY STREET, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI - 600011.

APPELLANT(S)

M.JOSEPH MATHEW

PLOT NO.39, II MAIN ROAD, SOUTH JAGANATHA NAGAR, VILLIVAKKAM, CHENNAI-600049 AND 2 OTHERS

¶13

RESPONDENT(S)

¶14

AS NO. 260 of 2022

¶15

M.Jacob

¶16

FLAT NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, NO.17/49, GOVINDASAMY STREET, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI - 600011.

APPELLANT(S)

M.Joseph Mathew

FLAT NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, NO.17/49, GOVINDASAMY STREET, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI - 600011. AND 2 OTHERS

¶21

RESPONDENT(S)

¶22

CMP NO. 3162 of 2023

¶23

For Appellant(s):

¶24

V.MYTHILI

¶25

G.K.GAARKEY CHANDHAR

¶26

For Respondent(s):

¶27

AS NO. 260 of 2022

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

For Appellant(s): V.MYTHILI G.K.GAARKEY CHANDHAR

¶30

For Respondent(s):

¶31

A.N.RAJAN FOR R1 J.CHANDRAN SUNDAR SASHIKUMAR N.SENTHIL FOR RR 2 & 3

¶32

ORDER

¶33

(Order of the Court was made by the Hon'ble Sathi Kumar Sukumara Kurup J.)

¶34

This Petition has been filed by the Appellant/Plaintiff to receive the Sale Deed dated 09.03.1994 in favour of deceased P.C.Mathew vide Doc. No.1293/1994-SRO,

¶35

Ambattur as additional evidence in this Appeal and permit the Appellant to mark the

¶36

same.

¶37

The learned Counsel for the first Respondent submitted that this Petition may be

¶38

allowed on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- to be paid by the Appellant/Plaintiff to the

¶39

first Respondent.

¶40

Accordingly, this Petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand Only). The Appellant/Plaintiff is directed to pay Rs.10,000/-(Rupees

¶41

Ten Thousand Only) to the first Respondent on or before 03.01.2025.

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

(SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP J.) 16-12-2024

¶44

¶45

CMP NO. 3162 of 2023

¶46

¶47

1. M.JOSEPH MATHEW

¶48

PLOT NO.39, II MAIN ROAD, SOUTH JAGANATHA NAGAR, VILLIVAKKAM, CHENNAI-600049

¶49

2. ANEY THOMAS

¶50

NO.26, II BLOCK, I MAIN ROAD, FIRT CROSS, PRAKRUTHI TOWNSHIP, BABUSAPALAYAM, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE-560043

¶51

3. JESSY KENNCY

¶52

W/O.KENNCY, RAMA BRIDGE APARTMENTS, FLAT NO.16, III FLOOR, NO.3, CENTRAL AVENUE ROAD, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI-600024

¶53

AS NO. 260 of 2022

¶54

1. M.JOSEPH MATHEW

¶55

FLAT NO.9, 1ST FLOOR, NO.17/49, GOVINDASAMY STREET, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI - 600011.

¶56

2. ANEY THOMAS

¶57

NO.26, II BLOCK, I MAIN ROAD, FIRST CROSS, PRAKRUTHI TOWNSHIP, BABYSAPALAYAM, KALYAN NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560043.

¶58

3. JESSY KENNCY

¶59

W/O. KENNCY, RAMA BRIDGE APARTMENTS, FLAT NO.16, III FLOOR, NO.3, CENTRA AVENUE ROAD, KODAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600024.

¶60

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

M.Jacob v. M.Joseph Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M.Jacob v. M.Joseph Mathew

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Govindan Vs Zivananthame

G.Kalanayagi Vs G.K.Krishna Mohan

Vasanambal Vs Pavunambal

Vasanthi Vs Sellammal

V. Venkatesan Vs Bhanumathi

Kalanthar Aasik Ahamed.I Vs The Superintendent of Police