9911796707
TMI Blog1991 (8) TMI 333X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1975. 2. The litigating parties are two brothers. We would refer to them by short names as Ramasamy and Muthiah. Their father Rangasami Kalingaraya, besides holding vast freehold properties held leasehold rights in two small parcels of land, whereon there was a hut obtained from Dharmapuram Adhee-nam, since many years prior to his death on 1-4-1962. After his death, dispute over the leasehold p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Ramaswamy-plaintiff succeeded in the trial Court as well as in the first Appellate Court on the first issue that he was in sole possession of the suit properties. Muthiah defendant failed on the second issue as he could neither prove the Will to be true and genuine nor any allotment in his favour. On the findings on issues Nos. 1 and 2, issue No. 3 logically was decided in favour of the Ramasw ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thers against the other. Having raised such inference to doubts, the High Court yet concluded with the following paragraph: I have entered my decision on the point only on the basis of the rival contentions of the parties without going into them and on the basis of the shortcomings in the findings of the Courts below without recording my own findings. I should think that the question of title t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ount was raised by the defendant before the first appellate Court. Rather title and possession on the land in dispute was asserted by Muthiah only on the basis of Will in his favour which plea of his miserably failed and has remained failed throughout. The only issue before the Courts below, on the strength of which the fate of the case rested was whether Ramasamy was in sole possession of the sui ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
