SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1983 Supreme(AP) 403

V.RAMASWAMI
Eashwar – Appellant
Versus
B. Sudershan – Respondent


V. RAMASWAMI, J.

( 1 ) THE defendant is the appellant. The respondents filed the suit for permanent injunction restraining the appellant from making any construction or repairs or any superstructure to the premises bearing No. 4-1-156 situated at Subhash Road, Secunderabad, and also for mandatory injunction directing the defendant to dismantle and remove the construction already made by him on the premises. The trial Court decreed the suit and the appellate Court confirmed the same. Thus the Second Appeal.

( 2 ) THE admitted facts are that the premises bearing No. 4-1-156 situated at Subhash Road Secunderabad was let out to the appellant and he has been continuing in possession and enjoyment thereof. On 5/11/1975, the roof portion had fallen down and as a consequence the walls also got damaged and door also has fallen. The appellant has put up the door that was fallen down and he also restored the roof to its original position.

( 3 ) THE case of the respondents is that the appellant did these things without obtaining their prior permission. Therefore, it is unauthorised and unwarranted. According to the respondents, the entire building has been collapsed and the appellant re-constru




Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top