9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 1464X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... th Raj, M.P. Parthiban and T.R.B. Sivakumar, Advs. ORDER 1. Leave granted. Heard Mr. K. Parasaran, learned Senior Counsel for the Appellants and Mr. Jayanth Muthraj, learned Counsel for the Respondents. 2. The Appellants have questioned the legality of the order passed by the Madurai Bench of High Court of Madras on 31.03.2016 in Review Application (MD) No. 150 of 2014 by which the High Court h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The land had been acquired which was questioned in W.P. No. 2490 of 1991 and High Court had passed the order on 2.12.1993 in favour of the Plaintiff and confirmed their right in the land comprised in survey No. 445 IB. One Maria Sampoornam, resident of Rameshwaram had fabricated a deed and tried to jeopardise the rights of the Plaintiff as such he filed OS No. 122 of 2002 before the Sub court at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iminary one on the aforesaid aspects of redemption and limitation and decided them vide order dated 23.11.2007 in favour of Defendants. 5. Aggrieved by the said order, Plaintiff preferred appeal bearing A.S. No. 4 of 2008 in the court of Principal District Judge in Ramanathapuram. The Principal District Judge vide order dated 27.11.2008 held that the aforesaid issues were mixed questions of law a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es with respect to redemption of the mortgage as well as with regard to Limitation could not have been decided as preliminary issues by the trial court being mixed question of law and facts. The Plaintiff has clearly averred in the plaint that there was redemption and thereafter land acquisition of the land took place which was quashed and case was decided in their favour as such they continued to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
