Bharathi v. Thangamani
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court allowed the second appeal, holding that a suit for declaration was time-barred. It quashed the first appellate decree setting aside sale deeds, restored the trial court decree, and ruled that disputed properties were self-acquired.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal allowed; First Appellate Court judgment set aside; Trial Court judgment and decree in O.S.No.98 of 2011 restored.
What the court decided
S.A.No.95 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 19.02.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
S.A.No.95 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.1994 of 2020 and C.M.P.No.26623 of 2023
Bharathi
... Appellant
Vs
- 1.Thangamani
- 2.Priyanka
- 3.Minor Lakshmi Priya
- 4.Natesan
Issues for consideration
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the First Appellate Court was correct in granting a decree declaring a sale deed void filed more than eight years after its execution?
Whether the First Appellate Court was wrong in ordering partition of properties identified by the Trial Court as self-acquired and not ancestral?
Whether the First Appellate Court was correct in setting aside a sale deed executed by the vendor as the Karta of the minor plaintiffs?
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Bharathi
- respondent
Thangamani
- respondent
Priyanka
- respondent
Minor Lakshmi Priya
- respondent
Natesan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court