Skip to content

Chennai Court July 1995 Judgments

Browse smarter

Open an 18-section brief on any judgment

Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.

  • AI Brief & Ask
  • Semantic AI Search
  • Devil's Bench

Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.

Jul 03 1995

Kandasamy Vs. Rathinambal and Others

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jul-03-1995

Reported in: AIR1996Mad252; 1995(2)CTC164

ORDER1. Invoking the review jurisdiction of this Court under Order 47, Rule 1 of Code of Civil Prodedure, the petitioner/appellant in C.M.P. No. 14563 of 1991 in S.A. No. 1659 of 1991 has filed this application to review the order passed by a learned single Judge of this Court, in the above petition, dated 7-4-1994 on the ground of legal error, grave injustice and apparent mistake.2. The applicant is the sixth defendant in the suit, O.S. 137 of 1984 on the file of the First Additional Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The first respondent filed the suit against the respondents 2 to 6, the defendants 1 to 5 and the applicant herein for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 27-4-1977 executed by the 2nd respondent for herself and on behalf of the respondents 3 to 5, agreeing to sell the suit property for a sum of Rs. 22,500/- in all. An advance of Rs. 13,780/- was received, agreeing to execute the sale deed within a period of six months from the date of the execu...


Jul 03 1995

Palanisami and Three ors. Vs. Executive Officer and Three ors.

Court: Chennai

Decided on: Jul-03-1995

Reported in: 1995(2)CTC438

ORDERRengasamy, J.1. This revision is against the order of the learned District Munsif, Palani, refusing to record the compromise in I.A. No. 240 of 1993 in O.S. No. 66 of 1992 for the reason that the suit was filed by the plaintiffs in their representative capacity and though the compromise has been signed by the plaintiffs, who are representing the villages, as all the villagers are not parties to the compromise, the same could not be recorded.2. The learned counsel Mr. P. Kulandaivadivelu representing the revision petitioners/plaintiffs would submit that it is not possible to obtain the signature from each and every villager, when especially the plaintiffs are representing the entire villagers, but the correct procedure for recording the compromise in the suit filed by the plaintiffs in the representative capacity is that, the publications has to be effected with regard to the terms of the compromise between the parties and in this case without resorting to that procedure the dismis...


  • Next ›

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial